Blank Pleading Template with Line Numbering -- Word

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

3 ) Case No.34-2012-80001048

4 Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, ) Sharon Chickering, George Miller, ) 5 Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott ) [PROPOSED] ) PEREMPTORY WRIT/ 6 Petitioners, ) ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A ) EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING 7 ) v. ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND ) FOR CONTINUANCE IN 8 Debra Bowen individually and officially ) SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO as The California Secretary of State ) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA 9 at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor ) FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO

10 Sacramento, CA, 95814; ) PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR A Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA ) WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT 11 FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at ) OF FUND RAISING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 ) 12 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John ) Date: March ____, 2012 and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. ) Time: 9:00 a.m. 13 ) Dept: 31 ) Respondents. Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny 14 ______) ) Action Filed: January 6, 2012 15 )

16 17 TO: Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II;

18 OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA), The California Attorney General, Edward C.

19 Noonan, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott,

20 Respondents 21 WHEREAS it is alleged by the Ex Parte Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented 22 without an attorney, having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits 23 annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of an Peremptory Writ for 24

25 stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing

26 before March 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in

27 response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent Barack Obama et al. signed 28

1 February 15, 2012, that this Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012

2 Petitioner’s evidence that Barack Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14th

3 Amendment definition rather than a “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father 4 already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE 5 Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack 6 Obama is not even “Born a Citizen” in the USA per se, and further alleged supported by 7

8 evidence of falsification, spoliation, concealment of records, admissions against interest

9 under Barack Obama’s control that substantiates need for ordering expedited interim

10 discovery for expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of 11 ballots starts on March 29, 2012, and to eliminate the calendar for such purpose in its 12 entirety; 13 WHEREAS it appears that petitioner is a party beneficially interested in this 14 proceeding; and 15

16 WHEREAS it appears from the affirmed application that Petitioner has no plain,

17 speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that an alternative writ of

18 mandate should issue; 19

20 NOW THEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately on the receipt of this writ: 21 1. That the Court issue an alternative writ in the first instance commanding Respondents 22

23 to court to conduct a hearing in open court on Barack Obama’s ballot access at the 2012

24 Election cycle, and to consider all requests by the Petitioners and Respondents as to

25 ballot access of Barack Obama and to continue as been filed. 26 1A. That the court alternatively issue an alternative writ commanding Respondent to Court 27 to conduct a hearing in open court on Barack Obama release of the August 1, 1961 28

1 though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm evidence and the Barack Obama release of

2 evidence as to why he should not be barred from the ballot proving that he is actually a

3 “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents; and 4 2. That the court issue a Peremptory Writ for Temporary Stay of CA SOS ballot 5 printing until further order become permanent as to Barack Obama; 6 2A. That the Court issue an alternative writ instance commanding Respondents to 7

8 court to conduct a hearing in open court That the court deny the Respondent Obama et

9 al. Demurrer filed February 16, 2012 in its entirety in regards to the January 6, 2012

10 Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition. 11 2B. That the court grant a continuance for CA SOS opportunity to amend the 12 demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this 13 Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March 26, 2012 is decided; 14 2C. That the court grant a continuance in scheduling on the January 6, 2012 15

16 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the

17 Alternative writ.

18 2D. That the court grant a continuance in scheduling with sufficient reason that 19 would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc. 20 2E. That the court grant for further and different relief that the Court deems 21 necessary for speedy justice herein. 22

24 The writ shall be served on Respondent and Real Party in Interest before

25 ______, 2012. 26 [The written return, if any, to this writ shall be filed and served by Respondent or Real 27 Party in Interest on or before ______, 2012.] 28

1 DATED: ______2 Clerk of the Court

3 4 By ______Deputy Clerk 5 ORDER 6 Let the foregoing writ issue. 7

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this alternative writ (and a copy of the

9 petition) be served at least ______days before the hearing on the above order to show cause. 10

11 DATED: ______12 Judge of the Superior Court

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

3 ) Case No.34-2012-80001048

4 Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, ) Sharon Chickering, George Miller, ) 5 Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott ) ORDER for EX PARTE PAMELA BARNETT’S PEREMPTORY WRIT ) 6 Petitioners, ) WITH ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING ) 7 ) ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND v. ) FOR CONTINUANCE IN 8 Debra Bowen individually and officially ) SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO as The California Secretary of State ) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA 9 at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor ) FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR A 10 Sacramento, CA, 95814; ) Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA ) WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING 11 FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at ) NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 ) Date: March ____, 2012 12 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John ) and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. ) Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 31 13 ) ) Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny Respondents. 14 ______) ) Action Filed: January 6, 2012 15 )

16 17 That Ex Parte Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney,

18 having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits annexed and

19 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of an Peremptory Writ for stay and

20 interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 21 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the 22 Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012, 23 and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this 24

25 Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner’s evidence that Barack

26 Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14th Amendment definition rather than a

27 “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 28

1 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012

2 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even “Born a Citizen” in the

3 USA per se; and further alleged supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, 4 concealment of records, admissions against interest under Barack Obama’s control that 5 substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary 6 hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012. 7

8 It is ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein

9 Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby stayed from

10 printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to be held on June 5, 2012 11 any of the names of the electors slates for the purported candidates for the office of 12 POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance of Respondents or by his / 13 her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted. 14 It is ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein 15

16 Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby to respond to

17 a subpoena Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 travel

18 microfilm and that Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred from the 19 ballot proving that he is actually a “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen 20 parents for interim discovery in preparation for the Hearing on ______21 It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for CA SOS opportunity to amend the 22

23 demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this

24 Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March ___, 2012 is decided.

25 It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for scheduling on the January 6, 2012 26 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the 27 Alternative writ. 28

1 It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for scheduling with sufficient reason

2 that would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc subject to the Alternative Writ.

3 It is SO ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack 4 Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, shall appear or by 5 his / her attorney show cause at the ______, Room ______, of this Court, to be held 6 at the Courthouse, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, on the _____ day of 7

8 ______, 2012, at ______o’clock in the ______noon or as soon as counsel

9 may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the Electoral College requiring

10 that each declared candidate be a natural born citizen. 11 Sufficient cause appearing therefore, let personal service of this order, and the 12

13 papers upon which this order is granted, upon the respondents Debra Bowen, The

14 California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA

15 (CALIFORNIA), The California Attorney General, Edward C. Noonan, Sharon Chickering,

16 George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott, on or before the _____ day of 17 March, 2012 be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or other proof of service shall be 18 presented to this Court on the return date directed in the second paragraph of this order. 19 ENTER 20

21 ______

1 Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner of the Ad Hoc California registered voters 2 with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Telephone: 530-845-5186 3

4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 6 ) Case No.: 7 Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, ) Sharon Chickering, George Miller, ) Relate Case No.: 34-2012-80001048 8 Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott ) ) EX PARTE PAMELA BARNETT’S 9 Petitioners, ) PREEMPTORY WRIT WITH ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A 10 ) ) EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING v. 11 ) ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND Debra Bowen individually and officially ) FOR CONTINUANCE IN 12 as The California Secretary of State ) SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor ) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA 13 Sacramento, CA, 95814; ) FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA ) PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT 14 FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at ) OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 ) FUND RAISING 15 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John ) and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. ) Date: March 26, 2012 16 Time: 9:00 a.m. ) ) Dept: 31 17 Respondents. ______) Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny

18 ) ) 19

20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 21 COUNTY OF ______) 22 I, Pamela Barnett, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 23 That Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having duly 24 notified Plaintiffs Edward C. Noonan, along with Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony 25

26 Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott having affirmed as Ad Hoc registered voters of California,

27 each self represented without an attorney, hereby submits for a Peremptory Writ for stay

28 and interim discovery with alternative writ for an expedited evidentiary hearing on the

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 1 of 25

1 merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and

2 Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) filed February 15, 2012 by

3 Respondents’ counsel Fredric D. Woocher Esq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the 4 Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence 5 provided hereby, that this affirmation is in support of an alternative writ for a expedited 6 evidentiary hearing on the merits of the evidence proffered to date that is sufficient to 7

8 also require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that a

9 continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule as to the California

10 Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s (the State, CA SOS, SOS) Demurrer with 11 Memorandum filed February 16, 2012 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. Hakl, Esq. 12 with return date of April 20, 2012, and that the State be granted further opportunity to 13 amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision 14 on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented; and further, that the 15

16 Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for

17 prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writ

18 is heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason that require an amended Petition 19 filed nunc pro tunc. 20 1. That as a Preliminary statement Petitioner opposes Respondent Barack Obama’s 21 Demurrer proffer of the ridiculous notion that somehow Respondent Obama may speak for 22

23 the California Secretary of State, which is a complete and total fallacy, to be considered

24 by this Court as a frivolous contention submitted in bad faith, and to suggest that

25 somehow an individual who is not a duly sworn public officer in the state of California may 26 be granted authority of compelling state action against public policy. 27 2. That on September 31, 2011, the CA SOS, Deborah Bowen issued instructions (see 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 2 of 25

1 Exhibit 1) also available at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-

2 primary/pdf/dem-president-2012.pdf to any prospective candidate(s) for the Office of

3 POTUS from the Democratic party in preparation for the June 5, 2012 Democratic Primary. 4 And that the CA SOS Instructions at Part 1 Qualification mandated that any candidate for 5 POTUS be eligible for that office according to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and 6 specifically meets the quote: 7

8 “ I. QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 9 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 cl. 5 “

10 3. That according to the California State Constitution at Article 20 the Oath of office 11 taken (1) as a duly elected public officer, in which there is a inherent duty on the part of 12

13 1 14 ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS [ Required Oath of Office ] [ Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 ] 15 SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, 16 and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or 17 affirmation: "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and 18 defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of 19 the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge 20 the duties upon which I am about to enter. (emphasis added) 21 "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the 22 United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a 23 member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful 24 means except as follows: (emphasis added)

25 (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of 26 ______I will not advocate nor become (name of 27 office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other 28 unlawful means." (emphasis added)

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 3 of 25

1 the Secretary of State to determine whether President Obama or any other presidential

2 candidate meets the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution; and

3 4. As far as Petitioner can surmise by reading the code and instructions of the State 4 Legislature and Congress as well as the CA SOS Notice provided to each candidate, shown 5 as Exhibit 1 for the Democrats, is that only Respondent Bowen has the duty as CA SOS 6 under CAEC §6041(2) to select the democratic party candidates for the party as there 7

8 appears there is no express authority delegated by the CA State Legislature to the

9 Democratic Party per se or any other party for that matter; so it's all of the CA SOS

10 responsibility to create and certify the "the list" of candidates. 11 5. Petitioner contends that the inherent statutory duties of the California secretary of 12 state are in conflict with regards to verifying eligibility of national presidential candidates 13 as the California Constitution mandates that the Secretary of State uphold her inherent 14 duties which is overseen by the Legislators and Executive to enforce with impeachment. 15

16 6. The California Constitution - Article II states:

17 SECTION 5. The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary whereby the 18

19 And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or 20 employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the 21 University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any 22 department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. 23 2 CAEC §6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or 24 recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United 25 States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. 26 Between the 150th day and the 68th day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the 27 selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential 28 primary election. (emphasis added)

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 4 of 25

1 candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for 2 the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has 3 withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy. (emphasis added) 4 7. To be a “recognized candidate” the U.S. Constitution, Art II mandates that: 5 “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time 6 of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of 7 thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” 8 8. It is a constitutional mandated duty for the Secretary of State to make a 9 determination to place on the ballot “only recognized candidates.” 10 9. Petitioner contends that RESPONDENT OBAMA despite the notice provided to 11

12 Respondent Obama and his agents to comply with California Election Code and the US

13 Constitution as shown as Exhibit 1, Respondent Obama nevertheless admits he is merely

14 on the honor system of self checking his eligibility states in the Demurrer MOL that quote: 15 ”either President Obama nor his campaign committee have any legal obligation to 16 provide proof of the President's qualifications as a "natural born citizen" to the Secretary of State in order to establish his eligibility to appear on the ballot as a 17 presidential candidate, much less for him to be able to engage in fundraising activities in California.” 18 19 thereby fails to state which of the duties that Secretary of State fails to apply to him as

20 would apply to any other candidate in the state running for office for ballot access per the

21 California Elections Code and the U.S. Constitution accused of fraud contends there is no

22 check required. 23 10. That according to California Law that also dictates the duties the Secretary of 24 State, including the duty as chief elections officer of California, to ensure election laws are 25 followed (California Government Code [hereinafter referred to as “CGC] § 12172.5), the 26

27 duty to investigate election fraud (CGC § 12172.5), and the duty to advise candidates and

28 local elections officials on the qualifications and requirements for running for office.

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 5 of 25

1 a. 12172.5. The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and shall administer the provisions of the Elections Code. 2 i. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficiently conducted and that state election laws are enforced. The Secretary 3 of State may require elections officers to make reports concerning 4 elections in their jurisdictions. ii. If, at any time, the Secretary of State concludes that state election 5 laws are not being enforced, the Secretary of State shall call the violation to the attention of the district attorney of the county or to 6 the Attorney General. In these instances, the Secretary of State may assist the county elections officer in discharging his or her 7 duties. 8 iii. In order to determine whether an elections law violation has occurred the Secretary of State may examine voted, unvoted, 9 spoiled and canceled ballots, vote-counting computer programs, vote by mail ballot envelopes and applications, and supplies 10 referred to in Section 14432 of the Elections Code. The Secretary of State may also examine any other records of elections officials 11 as he or she finds necessary in making his or her determination, 12 subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 6253.5. iv. The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to assure the 13 uniform application and administration of state election laws. (emphasis added) 14 11.Petitioner contends that CA SOS in order to fulfill her duty to advise candidates, 15

16 there are several documents on the California Secretary of State website informing all

17 who are seeking elected office as to the qualifications and requirements for each elected

18 position. Documents listing the qualifications and requirements are provided for the offices 19 of Governor and Lieutenant Governor; Secretary of State, Controller and Treasurer; 20 Attorney General; Insurance Commissioner; Member of the State Board of Equalization; 21 State Senator and Member of Assembly; United States Senator; United States 22 Representative in Congress; and President of the United States. The SOS currently verifies 23

24 that every candidate for these positions, except for that of the office of President of the

25 United States, meets the requirements for each respective office is inherent to her oath.

26 12.Since the CA SOS does have a ministerial duty to verify the eligibility for nearly all 27 of the candidates for office, it is not improper to infer that she also has a ministerial duty 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 6 of 25

1 to verify the eligibility of those who are running for the office of President of the United

2 States in a timely manner under the requirements of CAEC § 6041 before the party

3 primary; as election of Federal officers is done at the state level on a state by state basis 4 under the plenary authority of the respective state legislature as a matter of compelling 5 state interest - no Federal elections are Federal other than by related law. 6 13.However, Petitioner contends that California Elections Code §6901 is at odds with 7

8 remainder of the CA SOS’s duties specified in California law before the general election,

9 because this statute directs that the CA SOS must place on the ballot the names of the

10 several political parties’ candidates. The effect of this statute is that the SOS’s duty to 11 ensure compliance with election law is suspended in favor of some other entity. 12 14.Petitioner absolutely denies Respondent Obama’s absurd allegation that somehow 13 the Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate in the present case is virtually identical to the 14 Petition Keyes v. Bowen, as the Petition herein is both timely and laches does not apply; 15

16 and therefore does not suffer from the same fatal defects of a case filed after the general

17 election as was done in Keyes v. Bowen.

18 15. Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012 19 before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility of the CA 20 SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer 21 duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express direction from the Legislature, 22

23 records that Petitioners/Plaintiffs standing has properly accrued as it was held by the

24 Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No.

25 C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012)[41] 26 “We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the law, including the 27 Constitution. But as we will explain, our interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it is not the judiciary's role to judge the qualifications and elections 28 of candidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does not

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 7 of 25

1 invalidate section 13314, however, because the application of that section is not limited to challenging the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership 2 in the Legislature. Moreover, because our interpretation resolves this case, it is unnecessary to reach any other constitutional questions, even if we might have 3 jurisdiction to do so.” 4 AND “Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts 5 of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 6 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have 7 jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. 8 AND 9 Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate 10 at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe 11 (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This 12 Court agrees.” (emphasis added)

13 16.Statute (Section) 13314 fully supports Petitioners’ standing to have this petition

14 heard on the merits and gives this court the full power to grant petitioners’ prayers for 15 relief even without the State having a ministerial duty unfilled as that is not stated as a 16 requirement for relief to the Petitioners. That prior to March 1, 2012, Petitioners did 17 properly allege inter alia that President Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" 18

19 (NBC) eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS) - not because he was not born

20 in the United States, but because his father was not a U.S. citizen and seek a writ of

21 mandate to compel Secretary of State Bowen to "bar Respondent Obama ballot access in 22 California along with those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming an 23 elector slate for 'the office of POTUS for California." (Petition for Prerogative Writ of 24 Mandate and Restraint of Fund Raising ("Petition"), @P18.); and further, 25

26 17. The Petition does also seek a "permanent restraining order” barring Barack

27 Obama or his campaign committee from fundraising in this election cycle, because

28 Respondent Obama is not NBC eligible for the Office of POTUS, spoliates evidence and

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 8 of 25

1 committed fraud in conspiracy to avoid detection from investigation of allegiances.

2 18. That Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama by counsel in the Demurrer

3 has improperly concluded that Barack Obama “is, of course, a ‘natural born citizen,’ born 4 in the United States to a mother who was an American citizen, and is thus fully qualified 5 to be President under the U.S. Constitution.” 6 19. The allegation proffered by Respondent Obama’s counsel in the Demurrer 7

8 directly contradicts every historical basis with related law to consider Respondent eligible

9 for Office of POTUS when his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother who was married to a

10 majority aged British subject ineligible for U.S. Citizenship would at best be merely 11 considered “Born a Citizen” as the assumption required by the 14th Amendment; and 12 20. That moreover, subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on 13 March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release (see Exhibit 2) and 14 Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD 15

16 CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and

17 crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008

18 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 19 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” with a picture of the 20 Sheriff’s webpage appended (see Exhibit 3) and currently before the Arizona primary now 21 in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE 22

23 (see Exhibit 4) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack

24 Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 1961 and

25 acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote: 26 “Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: 27 first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and 28 second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 9 of 25

1 County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. 2 During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable 3 cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, 4 investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:. 5 • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed 6 by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

7 • To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United 8 States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights 9 that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, 10 records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration 11 cards cannot be found. “ 12 21. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE 13 shown as Exhibit 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see Exhibit 5) 14 is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and 15

16 attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the

17 transcript (see Exhibit 6); and

18 22. The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2008 19 proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions 20 of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 21 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27, 2011 22

23 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had

24 requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. However,

25 examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 26 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 7) as shown by the FactCheck.org report 27 on August 21, 2008; and the later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 10 of 25

1 so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media,

2 were partisan amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do

3 Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the 4 foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission 5 against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong 6 doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. 7

8 23. That Petitioner in her January 2, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

9 request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport

10 and travel records of Respondent Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) 11 (Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on December 10, 2010 12 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS- 13 299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed 14 “Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah” from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit 8), therein 15

16 proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro,

17 the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her

18 divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and 19 24. Further, Petitioner contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the 20 Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of 21 the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of 22

23 John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor

24 having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenant, and as

25 such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are 26 missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of 27 Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 11 of 25

1 make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter

2 shown in Exhibit 8 provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that

3 Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence. 4 25. As Further evidence, Petitioner provides additional proof that Respondent 5 Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an 6 Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and 7

8 plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on

9 the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit 9).

10 26. Further, Petitioner opposes Respondent Obama’s contention that this Court 11 lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners' claims because federal law that with limitation of Article 12 2 Section 1 establishes the procedures for election of the President, and that somehow 13 the exclusive means of challenging the qualifications of a presidential candidate is to 14 present an objection before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15 is 15

16 totally preposterous on its face primarily because elections are conducted separately at

17 the state level with original state jurisdiction afforded to the respective state court; and as

18 evidence that Respondent Obama’s contention is obstreperous and offered in bad faith 19 Petitioner offers into evidence the actual response of Congressman in regards to the 20 supposed original duty somehow vested in the Congress is wrong (see Exhibit 10) and is 21 evidenced by the reaction of various Congressmen and US Senate Judiciary Committee: 22

th 23 Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14 Amend. and courts on November 11, 2008 wrote:

25 26

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 12 of 25

1 Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:

4 Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote: 5

10 Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & “proper authorities” on December 4, 2008 wrote: 11

13 Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote: 14

17 Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009 wrote:

18 19

23 Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009 wrote:

25 26

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 13 of 25

th 1 Rep. Steve King defers to the 14 Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:

4 Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote: 5

8 Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on

9 February 6, 2009 wrote:

10 11

13 Petitioner can go on to document further gross negligence on the part of Congressmen 14

15 and the affect of the willful spoliation and concealment activities of Respondent Obama.

16 27. Petitioner opposes RESPONDENT Obama’s contention that only the Electors

17 of his party can decide if he is qualified. Respondent Obama quotes Robinson v. Bowen,

18 (189 Cal. App. 4th at p.661 [supra, 567 F. Supp. 2d at p. 1147]) “Therefore, any challenge 19 to President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President “is committed under the Constitution 20 to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. - - not to the 21 Secretary of State or this court.”” fails to address the fact that Petitioner’s timely filing 22

23 before the primary ballot is created renders the contention inapplicable and shoulders the

24 determination for ballot access upon the CA SOS and or the Court herein and that the

25 Congress is not compelled by express law to required proof of eligibility other than that 26 inherent in each member’s oath of office like that of the CA SOS. 27 28. Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama’s contention of authority to 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 14 of 25

1 determine eligibility rests with the electoral college is in conflict with the instructions of

2 the California State legislature that such body has no individual elector discretion other

3 than to merely be a vessel to carry a mandatory vote and as such presupposes other 4 powers that do not exist under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 1 (3) as 5 the President and Vice President are chosen by Electors a the state level independently 6 under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states 7

8 and the District of Columbia (see Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of

9 the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not

10 define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of 11 Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors 12 through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. 13 29. In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on the 14 ballot to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the name of the candidate 15

16 for President and Vice President, that they, the Elector, have pledged they will support. It

17 is fully understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are the

18 representative "stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their 19 electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some states, in past years, 20 this pledge was informal, and an Elector could still legally cast their electoral ballot for 21 whomever they chose. More recently, some state legislatures and the California State 22

23 legislature (exercising their constitutional authority to do so) of 26 or so have mandated

25 3 The US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2: Method of choosing electors 26 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be 27 entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or 28 Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (emphasis added)

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 15 of 25

1 in law that Electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to

2 whom they are pledged.

3 30. Petitioner contends as such the State legislature of California has the plenary 4 authority and duty with which it may delegate responsibility to electors by express law, 5 and is limited as the SCOTUS expressed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the 6 Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected 7

8 "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote that these words

9 "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the

10 legislative power." and that based upon information belief does not grant delegation of 11 responsibility as such and may not grant authority to any quasi political party apart from 12 state control and oversight and may not grant such authority without an amendment to 13 the US Constitution; however, at point the legislature does not have authority to 14 relinquish its authority per se in regards to the legislature’s election of a candidate for 15

16 President / Vice President; and a such the legislature shares its authority to determine by

17 assertion of law the responsibility to determine the eligibility to meet the qualifications of

18 its candidate be in conformance with precedent and historical practice informing the duties 19 of the Executive along with the Secretary of State as artificial person public officers as 20 defined under State Public Officer law; and therefore, such express or implied instruction 21 along with the actions of public officers as well as the inherent powers supposedly granted 22

23 to the electors are subject to judicial review herein.

24 31. That Petitioner contends that the Legislature Judiciary and Executive are

25 without authority to write legislation redefining the term of art Natural Born Citizen as that 26

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 16 of 25

1 would require an amendment to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as

2 related law (4) , and is absent to date as shown by the Letters in Exhibit 10.

3 32. Petitioner also contends that an elector who is bound by law in California (as 4 in 26 others states) to vote only for the person elected in the advisory vote of the electors 5 at the general election relieves any discretion in that the candidate must be eligible prior 6 to ballot access; and where the other 25 states the electors may vote for anyone he/she 7

8 chooses, as such may afford some discretion to determine eligibility. However, there is no

9 binding requirement as a result of the “advisory vote” of the electors at the primary or

10 general election as in California that has to be followed – unless there is a criminal 11 conspiracy to usurp the office of POTUS by design and even as evidence over the last 4 12 years remains under investigation only in Arizona by one Sheriff with authority Joe Arpaio. 13 33. Petitioner in light of the evidence herewith contends that for RESPONDENT 14 Obama to suggest that there is somehow a waiver of the requirements for eligibility just 15

16 because someone doesn’t verify such still does not change the requirements of eligibility

17 or overcome the requirement to qualify for office, and remains a jackpot situation that

18 automatically vacates the office on its face that then falls back to the individual 19

20 4 US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5: Qualifications for office

21 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be 22 eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. 23 By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be: • natural born citizens - person born in the USA of US Citizen parents, Minor v. Happersett 88 24 U.S. 162. • at least thirty-five years old 25 • inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years.

26 Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were modified by subsequent amendments: The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet all of the 27 qualifications of being a President; and The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a 28 President from being elected more than twice.

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 17 of 25

1 committing the fraud as a criminal matter to be prosecuted in the respective state,

2 perhaps Arizona; and that the failure to meet the qualification for office of POTUS would

3 automatically incapacitate the attempt of usurpation as void ab initio, and thereby 4 requiring according to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 the next person in line with eligibility 5 to meet the qualification (5) 6 34. That as part of the CA SOS duties to make a determination of eligibility SOS 7

8 vetted the presidential Constitutional qualification for ballot access of Peace and Freedom

10 5 US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6: Vacancy and disability

11 In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice 12 President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as 13 President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. 14 The wording of this clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the Vice President would 15 become President, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an Acting President. Harrison's Vice President, John Tyler, believed that he had the right to become President. However, 16 many Senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long 17 enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler ended up taking the Oath of Office and became President, 18 setting a precedent that is followed to this day. Tyler's precedent made it possible for Vice Presidents Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, 19 Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson to ascend to the presidency (Gerald Ford took office after the passage of the Twenty-fifth Amendment). 20 Tyler's precedent established that if the President's office becomes vacant due to death, resignation or disqualification, the Vice President becomes President. The Congress may provide for 21 a line of succession beyond the Vice President. The Presidential Succession Act establishes the order as: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate 22 and then the fifteen Cabinet Secretaries in order of that Department's establishment. The Twenty-fifth Amendment explicitly states that when the Presidency is vacant, then the 23 Vice President becomes President. This provision applied at the time Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency. In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to 24 appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress, a new Vice President. Furthermore, the Amendment provides that the President, or the Vice President and Cabinet, can declare the 25 President unable to discharge his duties, in which case the Vice President becomes Acting President. If the declaration is done by the Vice President and Cabinet, the Amendment permits the 26 President to take control back, unless the Vice President and Cabinet challenge the President and 27 two-thirds of both Houses vote to sustain the findings of the Vice President and Cabinet. If the declaration is done by the President, he may take control back without risk of being overridden by 28 the Congress.

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 18 of 25

1 candidates, as shown by the copy of the campaign flier, press release and notarized

2 correspondence regarding denial of ballot access (see Exhibit 11). This is further evidence

3 of arbitrary and capricious action by CA SOS Bowen in her use of discretion to vet and 4 single out POTUS candidates when they are honest and forth coming with their 5 qualifications according to the CA SOS Notice shown as Exhibit 1 uses the criteria of 6 eligibility against everyone except the Democrats and Respondent Obama in particular. 7

8 35. Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama has improperly used the false

9 conclusion drawn by the Indiana Court in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind .

10 App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 that was again used by Judge Malihi decision after the 26 11 January 2012 hearing in Georgia at which sworn testimony on the merits was entered on 12 the record of any court proceeding for the first time since 2008 when the court proceeding 13 started and were systematically blocked for various reasons including lack of standing and 14 being untimely. Petitioner provides the learned legal analysis of Mario Apuzzo Esq., which 15

th 16 proves Ankeny as well as the 14 Amendment and Wong Kim Ark do not make Obama a

17 NATURAL Born citizen as Respondent Candidate Obama contends (see Exhibit 12). The

18 Ankeny court only supports that he is “Born a Citizen” naturalized by the 14th Amendment 19 at best. Also Ankeny did not rule that Candidate Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. In dicta, 20 the Indiana Appeals Court puts words in the mouths of the SCOTUS Justices. This 21 absolutely has no control over California or Federal rulings, and in dissecting the Malihi 22

23 Decision, appended thereafter (see Exhibit 13), that relies upon the Indiana decision.

24 36. That to the best of Petitioners knowledge based upon a recorded message (6)

25 by January 30, 2012 the CA SOS had accepted the candidacy of Barack Obama 26

6 Vonage message for Charles Mallon from “Maxine of the CA SOS office on January 30, 2012: 27

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 19 of 25

1 notwithstanding anything else that has been complained of by Petitioners and others and

2 the CA SOS is acting individually as a partisan Democrat who has instructed her agents

3 to announce the CA SOS acceptance of the Respondent Candidacy and instructed 4 employees to make the following statement by “Maxine” of the CA SOS calling 5 from:[email protected] to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) received Mon, 30 6 Jan 2012 16:53:05 the recording of the message left Jan 30 2012 08:50:25 AM From: ST 7

8 OF CA SECRET (19166537635) to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) as follows quote:

9 "Hi Mr. Mallon, my name is Maxine and I'm returning your call to Secretary of State's office in Sacramento; and you wanted to find out what, ahh what if any action 10 California might take regarding Georgia’s ahh, the state of Georgia's challenge, to Barack Obama's eligibility ahh as a presidential candidate; and ahh as far as I 11 understand our office and the state of California has no plans absent to date to take ahh , I believe the state recognizes him as a legitimate citizen, ahh I mean a candidate 12 where that needs to qualifications and that is based on the Democratic party’s ahh acceptance of his meeting those qualifications. The Party itself is to accept the 13 candidate prior to nominating him so ahh our office accepts what the party ahh puts forth and has no further involvement, thank you for calling our office and have a great 14 day ,bye bye..”

15 37. That the Georgia hearing that “Maxine” speaks of was held on January 26, 16 2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia who on February 3, 2102 rendered a decision 17 shown as Exhibit 13 now on appeal, and with the entire proceeding video of sworn 18

19 testimony at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w

20 38. The Sworn Witness John Sampson as an expert witness retired INS False

21 Document Special Investigator at the January 26, 2012 hearing when asked if he would

22 have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified 23 documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said “YES!” 24 39. That on February 28, 2012, Respondent Obama was added to the list of 25 “Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates” in California, notwithstanding his fraud 26

27 http://www.vonage.com/vvv/index.php?message_id=MTYxOTc0MTMxMzktMTMyNzkxMzQyNS0xMzI 28 3OTQyMjI3OTMyJGtsZ2ExJDop

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 20 of 25

1 spoliation and concealment activities now under investigation in Arizona (see Exhibit 14).

2 40. That Petitioner for the foregoing reasons urges a continuance in the Prerogative

3 Writ case, and were the judge not to rule in Petitioner’s favor, on this Alternative Writ, 4 Petitioner responds to CA SOS Bowen's demurrer main points as follows: 5 a. That to the extent that CA SOS has not investigated the charges of spoliation, 6 concealment, false swearing, fraud that are all matters required as a duty under 7

8 California Election Code the Petition does not fail to State a Cause of Action against

9 the Secretary of State who has acted individually ultra vires, in a partisan manner

10 in violation of her oath of office and charge given her by the state of California. 11 b. That there is no basis in law without sworn affidavits and substantive proof that a 12 candidate being submitted by the respective party has been duly vetted and meets 13 the criteria of the eligibility requirements under the State and Federal constitutions 14 and related law; and that prior precedents of the SCOTUS must be considered by 15

16 this court, in that the Secretary of State has not done the minimum due diligence to

17 protect both the interest of the State and the people who are to vote. The

18 preponderance of the evidence provides that there is no legal duty to determine 19 whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as 20 President or at least defer to the Judiciary for a hearing and ruling on the merits 21 has never been done to date until this cases filing being timely and properly 22

23 supported.

24 c. That Petitioner based upon the foregoing evidence and related law underlying the

25 requirement for a prospective candidate and agents are culpable for misdirection 26 and concealment associated with the ongoing fraud to usurp the office of POTUS 27

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 21 of 25

1 again is a compelling State interest in each State of the several States and District

2 of Columbia that conduct the respective individual elections for their respective

3 state representative to the Federal Executive and Congress according has been 4 relegated by Congress for resolution in each State and Judiciary with original 5 jurisdiction in a timely manner, notwithstanding the mirage of purported Federal 6 remedy available as a discretionary option without force of law except in the 7

8 respective State of the several States with original jurisdiction over elections.

9 d. That Petitioners having filed January 6, 2012 are as timeless as any of the

10 respective candidates and therefore Petitioners’ standing has properly accrued for 11 an evidentiary hearing on the merits with remedy fashioned based upon the 12 authority granted to this Court, and that laches does not apply as relief is available. 13 e. Petitioners' complaint is not barred by the doctrine of laches when in fact the 14 Determination to place the Democratic Candidate on the Primary ballot was only 15

16 reached on February 28, 2012, and arbitrarily so, contrary to the duty to hear

17 complaints and conduct investigation of ongoing crimes having accrued as done by

18 Respondent Obama and his agents, including the California foreign entity of Obama 19 for America are properly served and named have unclean hands, and have made 20 admissions against interest regarding the so-called birth place and both CoLBs are 21 rightly to be deemed forgeries based upon the preponderance of evidence that 22

23 based upon the inherent duties of the CA SOS and it employees to administer the

24 law were ignored as a matter of partisan bias in violation of their oath of office as

25 public officers to serve and protect the sanctity of the ballot, and 26 f. That the references made by Respondent Obama that the California Democratic 27 Party must be added as a nunc pro tunc Respondent Defendant herein, as a matter 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 22 of 25

1 of record is a compelling state interest for this Court to conduct an evidentiary

2 hearing on the evidence presented on an expedited schedule done by no later than

3 March 26, 2012; as the Primary Ballot is to be printed starting March 29, 2012, and 4 although the Democratic primary is moot, as there is only one candidate, 5 nevertheless this matter must be resolved to provide the Democratic Party 6 opportunity to fill the vacancy with a legitimate eligible candidate or otherwise 7

8 electors would be unassigned at the National convention from California in August.

9 41. That Petitioner as a matter of time as the essence requests a continuance of

10 the schedule for the prerogative writ petition, and were this alternative writ not accepted 11 then let this affidavit stand as the response to the CA SOS and Obama demurrers. 12 42. That Petitioner has not requested this relieve previously as the new evidence 13 has just become available, and as such must be considered by this Court as a compelling 14 reason for an expedited hearing on the merits of the forged document, false filing by the 15

16 agents of Respondent Obama and the Partisan activities of a public officer(s) to assist in

17 fraud and continued spoliation of the public record find that Respondent Obama is not

18 eligible to appear on the Democratic Primary ballot starting no later than March 29, 2012 19 for the schedule June 5, 2012 California primary elections. Those Respondents be ordered 20 to produce documents in response for an expedited hearing on the merits of the evidence. 21 CONCLUSION 22

23 For the foregoing reasons based upon new evidence submitted herein, and because

24 there is no express provision of law that directs U.S. Congress and/or electors of the

25 electoral college for California and/or a political party the duty to determine POTUS 26 candidate Constitutional eligibility, the issue of Presidential eligibility remains a plenary 27 matter to be determined by the State Legislature under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 23 of 25

1 Section 1 paragraph 2. Therefore, the State may not relinquish authority and

2 responsibility it has for the SOS must determine ballot configuration and candidate access.

3 If the State fails to act in this inherent State duty, the Court is empowered, otherwise with 4 original jurisdiction to make a determination of qualification when there is sufficient 5 evidence and proof of a fraud. That PETITIONERS’ have demonstrated that questions of 6 eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the SOS, chief 7

8 elections officer of the State of California, and that and that this matter was improperly

9 answered with a demurrer because PETITIONERS’ have established that the Secretary of

10 State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates eligibility. However, since an actual 11 conflict arises between this duty and the duty to simply place a national party candidate 12 for President on the ballot, PETITIONER respectfully requests that this court grant this 13 Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with Alternative writ of an expedited 14 hearing on the merits along with a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer 15

16 and Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) filed February 15, 2012, and

17 there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this

18 affirmation be deemed sufficient to also require as a matter of fair notice and respect for 19 the court calendar that a continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule 20 as to the California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s Demurrer with Memorandum filed 21 February 16, 2012, and the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer 22

23 or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the

24 merits herein and further evidence presented; and further, that the Court order a

25 continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for prerogative writ of 26 mandamus with stay and injunction, and until the Alternative Writ heard and decision 27 rendered with sufficient reason that require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc. 28

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 24 of 25

1 I have read Ex Parte Pamela Barnett’s Alternative Writ for a Expedited Hearing on

2 the Merits of Evidence and for Continuance in scheduling in response to Barack Obama,

3 Obama for America’s Demurrer to Petitioners’ Petition for a Writ of Mandate and Restraint 4 of Fundraising to bar access of ineligible declared candidate(s) for office of President of 5 the United States (POTUS) at the 2012 election cycle with restraint of fund raising of such 6 committees as a matter of imminent harm and irreparable injury with time as the 7

8 essence, and I know its contents; the facts stated are true to my own personal

9 knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and

10 belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all 11 matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and 12 records, and personal knowledge except to those stated upon information and belief, 13 which I believe to be true. 14

16 ______Pamela Barnett 17 Sworn to before me This ___ day of March 2012 18 19

20 ______Notary Public 21

Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 25 of 25

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 1

Summary of Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY

June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

I. QUALIFICATIONS

Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 cl. 5

II. REQUIREMENTS

There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election:

 by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or  by circulating nomination petitions.

A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES

1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. § 60411

Other criteria the Secretary of State may use to determine who is a “generally-recognized” candidate includes, but is not limited to: a. Qualifying for federal matching funds, b. Appearing in presidential public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, or debates, c. Being on other states’ primary ballots as a presidential candidate, d. Actively campaigning in California for the presidency, e. Having a campaign office in California, and f. Advice and input from the chairs of the respective state parties.

2. Between January 7, 2012* (E-150) and March 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State will publicly announce this determination. § 6041

1 All code references are to the California Elections Code unless otherwise stated.

09/30/2011 Qualifications and Requirements Presidential Nomination Democratic Party Page 2 June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

3. The last day a candidate may withdraw from the list of candidates to be certified by the Secretary of State is March 29, 2012 (E-68). §§ 6042, 6043

B. CIRCULATION OF NOMINATION PETITIONS FOR CANDIDATES NOT SELECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OR UNCOMMITTED DELEGATIONS

1. Any candidate not selected by the Secretary of State or any uncommitted delegation desiring to be placed on the presidential primary election ballot shall have nomination papers circulated on behalf of the candidacy. § 6061

2. To qualify for placement on the Presidential Primary Election ballot, the nomination papers of the candidate or uncommitted delegation must be signed by voters who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party equal in number to not less than one percent or 500, whichever is fewer, in each congressional district of the number of persons who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party in the Report of Registration issued by the Secretary of State on January 22, 2012* (E-135). § 6061

3. Each signer of a nomination paper may sign only one paper. The signer shall print his or her name, indicate his or her place of residence, and declare his or her intention to support the candidate or delegation named on the nomination paper. § 6104

4. Each section of the nomination paper shall be delivered to the elections official of the county where the petition was circulated. § 6101

5. The period for circulating the nominating petitions is January 27, 2012 (E-130) through March 24, 2012* (E-73). §§ 6101, 6122

6. The last day to file nomination papers with the county elections official is March 24, 2012* (E-73). § 6122

7. No later than March 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State shall prepare a certified list containing the name of each candidate who is entitled to be voted for on the ballot at the Presidential Primary Election, and the name of each chairperson of a steering committee of an uncommitted delegation who is to be voted for on the same ballot. § 6180

*Asterisked dates indicate that the date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday; if the date is also a deadline, in most cases, it will move forward to the next business day. § 15

09/30/2011 Qualifications and Requirements Presidential Nomination Democratic Party Page 3 June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

III. APPOINTMENT OF STEERING COMMITTEES

A. Each unselected candidate and each group proposing an uncommitted delegation is required to appoint a seven-member steering committee and shall appoint one of the members to serve as chairperson. § 6080

B. The chairperson of the steering committee, no later than March 15, 2012 (E-82), shall file with the Secretary of State a statement containing the names and addresses of the members of the committee. § 6081

C. Each steering committee shall be responsible for the circulation of nomination papers of unselected candidates and groups proposing uncommitted delegations. § 6082

IV. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. The California Elections Code contains various requirements that must be met by anyone planning to run as a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. Prospective candidates and delegates should review these laws well in advance of the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election. For further information, the candidate is advised to consult California Elections Code section 6000, et seq. This code is available on the Internet at the Legislative Counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

B. Prospective candidates and delegates should contact the California Democratic Party at 1401 21st St., #200, Sacramento, California, 95811, for additional duties and responsibilities not specified in the Elections Code or items not filed with either the Secretary of State or county elections officials.

C. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office does not provide forms for presidential candidates.

D. Because of the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, As Amended, a presidential candidate should contact the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20463, or call toll-free (800) 424-9530 for a copy of the Act, related regulations giving the filing requirements for reporting campaign contributions, and the forms on which to file.

E. No filing fee shall be required from any person in order to file nomination papers. § 6146

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This information sheet of presidential candidate qualifications and requirements is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation, or rule. In case of conflict, the law, regulation, or rule will apply. The candidate should obtain the most up-to-date information available because of possible changes in law.

09/30/2011

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 2

SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Arpaio suspects forgery

March 1, 2012

(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told reporters, “A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s long- form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer- generated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public.”

This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.

Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:.

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: [email protected]

President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.

When and Why Sheriff’s investigators became involved

In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his “Cold Case Posse” at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Additional findings by investigators

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: [email protected]

Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case.

Sheriff’s Investigator Mike Zullo says, “We have also determined during the course of our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their possession.”

Sheriff Arpaio added, “A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it.”

The Matter of the Selective Service Registration Card

Sheriff’s Investigators were then led to investigate President’s Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980.

Investigators compared Obama’s card to others filled out in same year and to at least two cards filled out in the same local.

The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with selective service. However, investigators note that Obama’s registration card is highly unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, “80” which appears to be an inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.

Investigators use video presentations to back up the evidence

The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: [email protected]

3 various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.

They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.

Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the Registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.

“The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said.” If the Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery.”

“As I said at the beginning of the investigation,” Arpaio said, “the President can easily put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has.”

Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.

“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Arpaio said.

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: [email protected]

4 Conclusive remarks

Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.

“I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved,” Arpaio said.

Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: [email protected]

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 3

I 2001 1fE t 3 Pb! 3: 0 1

CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER (A.R.S. 5 16-/!42) 9FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

You are hereby notified that I, %rack am seeking nomination as a candidate for the offid of President of the United States from the Democratic Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.

I am a natural born citlzen of the United ~ts/tes,am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.

5046 South Greenwood Avenue, ~hiod~o.IL 60615 CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+ of residence (city or town) (zip)

Obama for America, 233 North ~ichj~anAvenue. 11th Floor, Chicag , 8666i9 Candidate's Post Office Address I (city or town) (zip)

Candidate's Arizona committee information: 1 Chairman's Name Don Bivens 1

2910 North central1 Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85012 Address (number and street) (city or town) (zip)

602-298-4200 I Telephone I RECEIVED SECRETARY OF STATE

a registered voter in the I stete in which I resi8@7DEC 1 3 32 0 I

Q~am 1 a member of the politiql party from which I am running as a

I am not ) candidate for the ofice bf President of the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, 1 am qualifieq to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for pldcing my name on its Election ballot. i

IQo\IC?W&~~? PJ Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this 20 -

My Co+tmission Expires: "3 - 3 1 - 20 1 0

File with:

Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Floor Phoenix, Atbna 85007

Dffice Revision 8/21/2007

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 4 REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 1 of 10 Opening Statement:

I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Offi ce in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certifi cate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source fi le was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure 2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed. The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaii—but this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document fi le. This would account for the transformation of a document containing diff erent color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ). There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image Green safety paper never started out as a paper source document and was never background scanned in as described by the White House—it was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points: Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in Figure 1: PDF fi le released from White House a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan)— not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout. Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration. This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama’s PDF document. Layers: A normal scan is a fl at fi le and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer. Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the fi le, rotated, and resized. Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation. Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in fi nal steps.

Blue background color and no safety paper

Safety paper background with a gray/blue color

Figure 2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned Figure 3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 2 of 10

The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

OCR—which stands for Optical Character Recognition—will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) Search word in Find box text. After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe No text found in fi le Acrobat Reader does not. Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found. Figure 4 shows the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box, and even though the word “Live” exists in the Certifi cate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that “no matches were found.” When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts Figure 4: Search for text is not recognized—No OCR applied are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama’s PDF fi le does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the Document Properties dialog box. Document Font Properties Font-based text can be created after a fi le has been processed of original PDF fi le through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text. Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box. Figure 7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box. The word “Live” is found and highlighted within the Certifi cate of Live Birth title. Figure 5: Font Properties of Obama’s PDF fi le

Search word in Find box

Document Font Properties after OCR Text Recognition Text found in OCR fi le

Figure 6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition Figure 7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 3 of 10 Introduction to Basic Terms

Paint strokes—no noise Let’s briefl y examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap

Noise v No Noise Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations Image noise of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image. In contrast, Figure 8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation. Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, Figure 8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do not contain noise. All neighboring pixels for the sample paint strokes in Figure 8 are solid in color with no variation—not even the slightest of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professional will need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise fi lter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF fi le. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.

Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing Figure 9 off ers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges. Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color Figure 9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will No noise have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanning—or not at all. Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with Noise image manipulation. The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise. A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white image—no color present. A bitmap Bitmap edges are jagged Anti-aliased edges are smooth setting would turn every pixel to on or off —white or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn’t be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone values—not Figure 10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge black or grayscale. REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 4 of 10

Scanner Chromatic Aberration Cool blue color at the upper edges What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when diff erent wavelengths of light are refracted diff erently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted diff erently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularly with text) compared to the opposite side of the contrasting color. In simpler terms, Figure 11 is an example of Chromatic Aberration in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges of the text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a Warm red color at the lower edges high zoom level in color scans such as the AP version of Obama’s BC—but this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obama’s PDF Figure 11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration released by the White House. Because the AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the AP did receive a printed hard copy of the BC from the White House and scanned whatever was presented to them. AP did not do anything wrong. They simply scanned what was handed Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency to them. in text—and no chromatic aberration It’s important to note that the AP version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background. This sudden diff erence in background color/pattern is another inconsistency that could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White House—but this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured fi le.

Figure 12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level Applying the Terms Reviewed A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled Color variation evidence of manipulation with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specifi c areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts.

Alvin’s signature suddenly Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter develops a smiley face “R” mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12. The white halo eff ect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is Spelling error on stamp Green text color values also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the offi cial stamp text—”TXE” instead of “THE.” While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds signifi cantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that aff ect both sides of the “H” character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an “X.” The Figure 13: Examples of text inconsistencies stamp also sports suspicious markings in the “Alvin” signature that has been referred to as a “happy face.”

No spelling error Figure 14 off ers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka’s stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no “happy face” markings in the “Alvin” signature. The “Ph.” spacing between the “P” and “h” is diff erent in both signature images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layer—no signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Alvin’s signature Some semblance of texture would be refl ected in an image without smiley face? scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texture—the ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14—is absent Figure 14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ from the Obama PDF. REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 5 of 10 Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimized

Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers: can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama’s PDF. The layers in Obama’s PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image Outside border edge boundary path manipulation. One fl at image layer A simple defi nition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce fi le size. As stated—optimization can cause layers—but in the case

One Link of optimization; the process of how the document is layered One fl at image is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms. Thus, there are certain predictable patterns. Outside border Path Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-based and Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-based which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator Figure 15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior is a vector-based program—meaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates diff erently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as paths—the mathematical equations that defi ne the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, Clipping Path layer a path is generated to defi ne the outer boundary border of that object. This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Multiple sub-layers Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image). The AP fi le version of Obama’s PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, Outside border path there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to Clipping Path display the following sub-layers: A boundary edge Path—the blue border surrounding the image Multiple links And the fl attened Image Figure 16 shows a crucial diff erence in the number of layers displayed in Obama’s PDF fi le (compared to the AP fi le): Obama’s Figure 16: Multiple layers and links in Obama’s PDF PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub -layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location of the One bitmap sub-layer at top clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It’s presence within the fi le and applied in a manner to No logic to layer object decisions hide portions of the image also refl ects image manipulation. Scroll box Another crucial diff erence in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroll box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to off er a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view). Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles. Huge amount of links Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer Insane number of color sub-layers Scroll box (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; Figure 17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied but the reverse is true in Obama’s PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer. REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 6 of 10 The Clipping Mask Path Visibility icon Let’s return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defi ning parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape Collapsed icon can be used as a clipping path—in this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure 18 defi nes an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefi t derived from using a Clipping Path clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide diff erent parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized fi le—it will never hide information. Figure 18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is fi rst opened—all other path objects Release Clipping Mask Group behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separately—the clipping mask group needs to be released—or ungrouped. Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask off ers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only

Expand icon exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the Clipping Path clipping mask path boundary—proof of image manipulation. X-Ray Scanner Vision

Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a report that Figure 19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indications of image First link actively selected manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document. At fi rst Layer visibility on glance these layers appear to be empty—but this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer). This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation. Tom Harrison off ers the following analogy in his report: Try to have someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able Top layer selected Layer object path to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football White pixels display revealed? Of course not. However, if a picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken of the person, layers can be used to “hide” the picture of the football behind the person (using a Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels Figure 20: program like Photoshop). By placing the picture of a person on a layer “in front of”—or on top—of the layer containing the football First link deselected Layer visibility off in the document—the football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer of the person is turned off . Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure 20—a close-up view to reveal numerous white pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background pattern— another indication that the white pixels are not a normal part of the background pattern. Layer object path turned off Figure 21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the White pixels disappear: undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white Pattern pixels uninterrupted pixel dots). To paraphrase Mr. Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterrupted safety paper pattern Figure 21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below under another object (such as the random white dots). REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 7 of 10

Selected active links Stamp Layer Appearance

The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or off ) independently of surrounding image layered parts—thus layers are a powerful image manipulation Selected active layers tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certifi cation stamp on Date stamp Certifi cation stamp separate layers—to move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 22–24 demonstrate how objects can be moved around independently. The Obama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the AP Figure 22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps optimization layer results for the same information in Figures 25– 26. The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation. The date stamp and certifi cation stamp are the selected layers in Figure 22. The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects. Figure 23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved

Date & certifi cation stamps moved independent of the background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certifi cation stamp is completely and independently separated onto its own layer. The same is true of the date stamp. This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation in which each of these items can be manipulated Figure 23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps independently of the surrounding background layer. This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements. Figure 24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independently from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer. Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color Background selected & moved displayed in the absence of pattern will be white.

Automation v Manual Manipulation Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP fi le opens Figure 24: Background layer with white halos can also move with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP fi le was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP fi le displays a multitude of layers. Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list. This top text layer is turned off in Figure 25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety of the many multi-color layers in the list Bottom layers selected—text layer off that still have their visibility turned on in Figure 25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and Figure 25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering optimization fails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layer—nor is there a diff erent layer for the date text—and again, no clean and Text layer on—one background layer off complete separation. Figure 26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layer’s visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how there’s no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layers—the Figure 26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off machine is deciding based on an automated process. REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 8 of 10

White Halo Creation

The white halo eff ect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the Top layer: Certifi cation stamp text former question, let’s address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the text—before fi lling the background layer with a green safety pattern. The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selection—thus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layer—without a white Bottom layer: White background halo. But for some reason, a white halo eff ect was generated— either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. Figure 27: A two-layer stamp text fi le created to demonstrate As might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures. Figure 27 shows the demonstration fi le set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF fi le was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop fi le on a layer that is above a solid white Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently fi lled with white). When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are Text is selected limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is fi rst selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the Figure 28: A text selection created and selection expanded selection only. In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer Expand Selection dialog box can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnail—in this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28). The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows Figure 29: Expand Selection option—expanded 2 pixels a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2 pixels. Selection Inverse option The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fi ll to the surrounding background area—not the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversed—also known as inverse—to ensure the pattern will fi ll everything on the background layer except the text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fi ll with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety Text selection expanded by 2 pixels paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will defi ne a safety paper pattern and fi ll the background layer using the current active Figure 30: Next the selection needs to be inversed selection. REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 9 of 10 Safety Paper Creation In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be fi lled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defi ned as a Selection of a sample pattern area fi ll option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to defi ne it as a pattern—but a pattern can be easily defi ned from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel—the current Obama PDF fi le will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. Defi ne the selection as a pattern The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easily—which means that when the selected area is fi lled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlessly—without any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Defi ne Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF fi le is closed and no longer needed. Figure 31: Selection used to defi ne a pattern Back to the demonstration fi le shown in Figure 32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu. In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33. Fill option chosen The safety paper pattern defi ned earlier in Figure 31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure 34. Click OK to complete the eff ect. The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text. In Figure 36—the Stamp Text layer’s visibility is turned off , and the Background layer active marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo eff ect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to Selection inversed read the explanation. In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact Figure 32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an offi cial document.

Pattern Fill option chosen

Background contains pattern fi ll

Figure 33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box Figure 35: The pattern fi lls the selection area

Custom Pattern chosen Stamp Text visibility off

White halo eff ect

Figure 34: The defi ned pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list Figure 36: Turn off the text layer: White halo eff ect is displayed REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 10 of 10

Some Final Thoughts

The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitude of ways to accomplish the same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the defi nitive method is not the main point. The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document? But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any Forgot to turn off a short form layer offi cial document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo. As previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master fi le exists as a source fi le. What is meant by a master fi le? A master fi le is a fi le in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and information than seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers). For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements merged onto Forgot to turn off safety-paper Background color layer in manufactured shadow magically shifts to blue that layer. In the master fi le version, the text still remains on a separate layer—NOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master fi le also contains the short form certifi cate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the fi le). Figure 37 and Figure 38 demonstrate that the AP version of the long form certifi cate contains a diff erent set of problems as follows: Figure 37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version A sudden shift to a diff erent background Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edge—but not in the document background Short form embedded into the printout—Figure 38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result Enhancement applied to display short form elements of a manufactured source fi le—in which layers from a master fi le were turned off or mistakenly left on.

Figure 38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 5

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 6 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Get Email Updates Contact Us

Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings Search WhiteHouse.gov

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 27, 2011

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

8:48 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera BLOG POSTS ON THIS ISSUE and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT Call with President Karzai Following the MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President President Obama reached requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the out to President Karzai Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. Sunday following the reported killing and If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all sounding of Afghan of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then civilians. Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents.

March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan

1 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. 2011.

To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal Energy Future government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t more jobs in the United States, making better spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a products than ever before, and how many are campaign issue it was settled and it was -- developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is? money at the pump.

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS

Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

Facebook YouTube MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. Twitter Vimeo

That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question Flickr iTunes about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -- the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. Google+ LinkedIn

But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country.

And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we should be having yet.

2 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction.

That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.

3 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon.

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for.

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter.

MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.

Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

4 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan --

MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.

Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,

5 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday --

Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.)

Q Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to --

Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

6 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this.

Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you --

Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.

Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long.

Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the --

MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.

7 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -- decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.

Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign.

Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow.

Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his

8 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

White House corroborate?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)

Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything.

MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today.

Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.

Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.

MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly.

In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do.

And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best.

Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final

9 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

package?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow.

And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning.

Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about --

MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this.

Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?

10 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning.

Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER: No.

Q Just to clarify what this document is --

MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.

Q What time?

MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

11 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Q When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that?

Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate.

Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was

12 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q Do we have the letter from the President --

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet.

Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate.

Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this?

MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.

Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on?

MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

13 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here.

MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes.

Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent?

MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally.

Thanks.

END 9:18 A.M. EDT

14 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Subscribe to RSS Feeds Apply for a Job

15 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 7

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Home • Articles • Born in the U.S.A. Born in the U.S.A. The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

Posted on August 21, 2008 , Updated on November 1, 2008; April 27, 2011

Summary In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Analysis Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night.

Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth."

Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.

Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?

Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?

Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

1 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Doocy: Well, couldn’t it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Corsi: No, it’s a — there’s been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it’s been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It’s a fake document that’s on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.

Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal. It isn’t signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn’t released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp

2 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

The raised seal

Blowup of text You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.

3 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Blowup of certificate number

Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

Obama’s birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it

4 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

– by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller

Sources United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama’s Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.

The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Obama’s certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to ‘ridiculous’ barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.

POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 AT 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

5 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So... Page 2 of 58

Qualifications

Who’s checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here

Home » Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility

Submitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments

TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog’s credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — they don’t have the right background (update: see bios here):

FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?

Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.

They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010 The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So... Page 3 of 58

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.

Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.

Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org’s supposed willingness to allow such an inspection).

Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example).

Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama’s legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details:

In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired:

“Well, here’s the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday

(Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire.

We based our suspicions and allegations on:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 8 United States Department of State - .. ...

Washington, D. C. 20520

DEC -I o 2010 q Case No.: 200900535 t - , ' ,-*\; #+$y&j Segment: PPT v L : . s .*.:*s .''$>-A

. I - 1." *-. "~.\.?$$zA ' ".,*$@ .::$.;:* ,& +, . ,-$?*$&3 , ,,A,-. ..-.- Ms. Pamela Barnett . -3 . '< 2 Y. 'L, i--$??.- I* 2541 Warrego Way . ..,; ,.'..?G; -XX& h , '. '-2 Sacramento, CA 95826 . . 1- &+ **., % *k.' \ k & - -2 J %# Dear Ms. Bayett: , ,,.\ , l%

>: L \ ;. 1 I refer to your request letter we received on January 2,2009 under the of Information Act (Title 5 USC Section 552) for a copy of documents rehg ;.,\,.-+. . +--,-5&a -.- ..$sb:x: to Stanley Ann Dunham. We initiated a search of the Office of Passport '- *,Ly;t; &-'- , &'..* Services. $$ ,14 > - ..$ . ., . ->a :;7;:4 '" 5 %Z.,: - .':$2 The search of the records of the Office of Passport Services has been .&,$ *.%.< completed and has resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are respcmsive: ,, to your request. These documents have been reviewed and the results are set .- forth in the accompanying letter (with enclosures) of Jonathan M. Rolbin, . \$ I Director.

We have now completed the processing of your request. If you have ar$ ~ questions with respect to our handling of your case, you may write to the Office of Information Programs and Services, SA-2, Department of State, ' - - Washington, D.C. 20522-8100. Please be sure to refer to the case number shown above in all correspondence about this case.

We hope that the Department has been of service to you in this matter.

Sincerely,

Office of Information Programs and Services

Enclosures: As stated United States Department of State

Wushutgton, D.C. 20520

In reply refer to: CA/PPT/L/LE - Case Control Number: 200900535

Pamela Barnett 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA 95826

Dear Ms. Barnett:

The following is in response to your request to the Department of State dated January 2,2009, requesting the release of material under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 5 552).

We have completed a search for records responsive to your request. The search resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. After careful review of these documents, we have determined that that all six documents may be released in full.

We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other non-vital records fiom that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance fi-om the General Services Administration.

Passport records typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrancelexit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc. since this information is entered into the passport book after issuance. This completes the processing of your request.

Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services

Enclosure: As stated . . 7". 4 - . . " i-lr FORM A' 7VED ~DGETBURE&U&O. 4i-"a'x8 ,Passport Office Use Only) -,___=. DEPARTMElv I OF STATE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PASSPORT Amend as shown in sectton: OB OC OD KlE OF INSTRUCTIONS: All requests for #nclus~onof persons must be sworn to (or affsrmed) be- Add VlSa Pages. fore on Agent of the Deportment of State or Clerk of Court. Photographs, whlch meet the requ~rementsbelow, and evldence of citlzenshlp must be subm~ttedfor all persons to be 0 by thls amendment. If such persons hove hod, or been included In, o prevlous , it should be submitted 1nstec.l of other documents, and Section G completed.

DATE OF BIRTH DONOT MAR FACE

C (husband) ocquired citizenship by naturalization, and/or Section 1 if wife wos previously married before March 3, 1931.) When more than 1 person is to be included, (WIFE'S) (HUSBAND'S) FULL LEGAL NAME PLACE OF BIRTH (City, State)

DO NOT STAPLE SECOND PHOTO DATE OF MARRIAGE DATE OF BIRTH ATTACH BY PAPER CLIP X D EXCLUDE PERSONS, AS FOLLOWS: WHO IS/ARE 0TO APPLY FOR SEPARATE PASSPORT ONOTTOACCOMPANY E

6 (CHILD(REN)'S) (WIFE'S) (HUSBAND'S) LAST U. S. PASSPORT NUMBER DATE ISSUED

IN NAME OF UIS SUBMITTED HEREWITH

OTHER DISPOSITION (State)

DSP-19 7 - 64 (OVER) PAGE 2

TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT REQUESTING INCLUSION IN THE PASSPORT OF A RELATIVE WHO ACQUIRED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH NATURALIZATION

MY IMMIGRATED TO ACQUIRED U. 5. CITIZENSHIP THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION OF THE U. S. ON (Month, day, year) ON (Month, day, year) 0SELF 0PARENT 0FORMER HUSBAND

'WHO WAS NATURALIZED BEFORE THE (Name of court) LOCATED IN fclry, State)

AS SHOWN BY THE ACCOMPANYING CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION NO.

TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHOSE WIFE WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931, AND WHO IS TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT (If married more than tw~ce,set forth facts In a supplemental statement)

HER MAIDEN NAME WAS DATE OF PREVIOUS MARRIAGE

I NAME OF FORMER HUSBAND PLACE OF PREVIOUS MARRIAGE I FORMER HUSBAND'S PLACE OF BIRTH MARRIAGE WAS TERMINATED BY DATE , 0OEATH 0DIVORCE

IN THE EVENT OF OEATH OR ACCIDENT NOTIFY NAME IN FULL RELATIONSHIP STREET ADDRESS. CITY. STATE 2

I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed che duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign srate or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the Uniced States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; of been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States,

(If any of the above-mentroned acts or condrtrons have been performed by or apply to the applrcant. or to any otherperson included or to be rncluded rn the passport, the portion wh~chapplies should be struck out, and a supplementary erplsnatory statemeit under oath (or ajflrrnatron) by the person to whom the portron rs applrcable should be attached and made a part of this application.) I I solemnly swear (affirm) that the statements herein made are true and that I have not previously asked to have these additional persons included in my passport; that they are not now in possession of valid passports, and chat they have not ma& application for passports and been refused. . ,+ :. i

Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this /day of i/ 19 (Agent, Department o/ State or Clerk o/ Co~rr~) I ' DSP 19 1 7 - 64 * U S RNMENT PRiNTING OFFICE : 1964 0 - 702-220 (2.12) 5 OF AMERICA

MENT /1 EXTENSION

OF IDENTIT

PERIOD AND PURPOSE /N P,FF//L/ATE- ,A44 PZ/,ED U Ad ~~~Do/Z/ES/~I/ C/T/?zN

I have not (and no other person ~ncludedor to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring tlnited States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmaim or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or par ticipated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the.United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States. (If my of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been perfomled by or apply to the applicont, or to any other person inclvded in the passport or documentation, the portion which applies should be struck out, and a sup kmentary explan~tor~statement under oath I (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portron is applrcable should be otrached and maJ a ~urtof this application.)

Subscribed and f SEA W I (The ueparrment will assume that the consular officer, to the applicant's identity unless a notation to the con NAME BIRTHPLACE BIRTHDATE ''I L.

SPOUSE WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED TO PREVIOUS MARRIAGE TERMINATED BY

- DIVORCE DEATH

I NUMBER OF MY SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS I DISPOSITION OF MY SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS PASSPORT PASSPORT (. ,/ 'V (7L~ =ATTACHED OCANCELED (DATE) -- AMEND TO INCLUDE (EXCLUDE) CHILDREN

AMEND TO READ IN MARRIED NAME NAME -- .* >

- + 1 DATE MARRIED PLACE MARRIED MARRIED TO

CITIZENSHIP OF HUSBAND 0U. 5. CITIZEN 0ALIEN-CITIZEN OF

OTHER AMENDMENT(S) (DESCRIBE IN DETAIL ACTION REQUESTED)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT BY CONSULAR OFFICER II

L- .

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SEEN AND RETURNED TO APPLICANT BY CONSULAR OFFICER

STATEMENT OF ACTION BY POST UPON DEPARTMENT'S AUTHORIZATION (To be executed only in connection with cases referred to Dept;)

THE 0PASSPORT ORENEWEDTO DATE L 0CARD OF IDENTITY WAS 0AMENDED AS REQUESTED 0CERTIFICATE 0EXTENDED TO

i AUTHORITY (Consul of the United States of America) OPINION OF CONSULAR OFFICER X X (Photo required for incltrsions) t t STAPLE ONE PHOTO HERE DO NOT MAR FACE I The passport photos required must w be approximately 2% by 2% inches in size; LC w be on thin unglazed paper, show full front 2 w view of applicant with a plain, light back-- ground; and have been taken within 2 years x of date submitted. When dependents are in- m cluded they should be shown in a-group pho- - tograph. The consul will not accept photos that are not a good likeness. Color photographs are acceptable. DG not stele second photo. Attach loosely by pmer clip.

(Consul of the United States of America) X FS-299 In certaln cases specific authorization by the Department will be required. In these cases an extra copy of the form should 17 - 64 be prepared Upon rece~ptof the Pepartment's reply the extra copy should be transmitted with a notation of the action taken, AVOID THE LAST DON'T PUT IT OFF APPLY MOW MINUTE RUSH t I DEPARTMENT OF STATE REQUEST BY UNITED STATES NATIONAL FOR AND REPORT OF EXCEPTION TO SECTION 53.1, TITLE 22 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS C REQUEST

ro rii* Passport Otf~ce,Department of Stace, Washlngtoc, D

NAME DESCR~PTION 5t6~ STAYLEY ANN SOETORO Brow Brown -- --- 135 I HOME ADDRESS D

BIRTHD4TE NATURALIZATION DATE PASSPORT NO., DATE AND PLACE C I~UARLI NOV. 29, 342 N. A. . 3' 777788 BIQ'HPLACE 3-19-65 b'ichita , Kansas ~onolsHafmii

DEPARTURE FROM UNITED STATES DATE AND PLACE OF DEPARTURE DESTINATION October 1967, Honolulu, Hawaii Djakarta , Indonesia

FLIGHT NUMBER OR VESSEL NAME OF CARRIER - Jzpn Airlines I TRAVEL TO UNITED STATES DATE AND PLACE OF DEFAqTURE FROM ABROAD I IDENTITY DOCLiMENTS PRESENTED October 20, 1971 , D jakerta , Indonesia 1 Passport as shown ebove FLIGHT NUMBER OR VESSEL I Pan Pnerican Aiwdps I PLACE OF ENTRY DESTINATION I I 1 October 21 , 1971 , Honolulu, Hzkxii f ACTION TAKEN I Identity and citizenship established. Exception granted under 22 CFR 53.2(h). bCT2 1iiq7) (Inspector's Stamp)

(Immigration ond Naturolizdtion Service) 1 SIGNATURE (Immigration Officer' irX. ' ., T-+ * . 3 \ *%>-.ff. ~y~~(*~~m=-I"*;

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE - PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE) :;: -' - . . - 1 4d DEPARTMENT OF STATE 1 LocATlo, Jakarta, Indonesia 1

TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION I IMMIGRATED TO THE U.S. I RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY IN THE U.S. NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE NO. 4: p. (Month, year) From (Yeor) To (Year) 3 Subm~ttedherewith .. % --

0Seen and returned 1* sev 0Previously submitted PLACE NATURALIZED (C~ty,state) NATURALIZATION COURT DATE NATURALIZED

I I COMPLETE ONLY IF OTHERS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT OR REGISTRATION AND Sl@MIT GROUP PHOTOGRAPH I (WIFE'S) (HUSBAND'S) FULL LEGAL NAME =NATIVE BORN NATURALIZATION ~ERTIFICATE NO. - =NATURALIZED 0Seen and returnet P PLACE NATURA LlZED (C~ty,state) NATURALIZATION COURT k DATE NATURALIZED t

I I (WIF@S) (HUSBAND'S) PLACE OF BIRTH (city, State or Prov~nce,country) DATE OF BIRTH (Mo., Day, year) I - - -- I 2- - RESIDED IN U.S. (From-To) NAME IN FULL OF CHILDREN INCLUDED PLACE OF BIRTH (C~ty,state/i)(ovtnce, country) (Month,DATE OFday, BIRTH - ' *" ,- '2 *vw;>m9Z66wws I;

FORM FS-176 9-74 FATHER'S NAME U.S. CITIZEN S14/3L€Y VVNUSM DATE NATURALIZED PLACE NATURALIZED (Ctty, state)

FATHER'S DATE OF BIRT~ 13FATHER DECEASED FATHER RESIDED IN U.S. FAT~ERRESIDING AT M~N~LQCu , j ~~~m Elk? 7~ ?YkY&-%r :: ~ b or MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME MOTHER'S PLACE bF BIRTH (Ctty. State. Prownca Country) ~u.s.CITIZEN . -9 MADUrh' PAYue fl NOT U.S. CITIZEN ,zL& =-kr 2. -NATURALIZED I PLACE NATURALIZED (Crty, state). I744

MOTHER'S DATE OF BIRTH a MOTHER DECEASED MOTHER RESIDED IN U.S. -1 26, I922 &OTHER R-IDING AT No&@ & (JLU, #/ om 7 T- f'h'~>-fdi j? I WAS NEVER MARRIED PqESENT FULL LEGAL NAME OF HUSBAND OR WIFE @l #AS LAST MARRIED ON (Dote) &fhsC /5# 3:: IHUSBAND'SOR WIFE'S PLACE OF BIRTH (city. state) IHUSBA~D'SOR NIFE'S DATE OF BIRTH I 11HUSBAND OR WIFE IS U.S. CITIZEN I .,".t

HUSBAND OR WIFE N~WRESIDING AT I

MARRIAGE TERMINATED BY 0DEATH 0DIVORCE ON PROPOSED TRAVEL PLANS T INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNIT @ STATES WITHIN _CMoNTns , tb -YEARS TO rn RESIDE &SIT. DINDEFINITE 01 I NEVER INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES C6 id I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO RESIDE B A F TURN 70 )~~8~~~

-- PORT OF DATE OF DEPARTURE DEPgyAmzT4 NAME OF SHIP OR AIRLINE I

WARNING: False statements made knowingly and willfully in passport applications or in affidavits or other supportihg oocumenrs suomlrreo merzwlmare punrmamevy-- pi:.%* -s fine and /or imprsonment under the provisions of 18 USC lml and/or 1 USC 1542. Alteration or mutilation of a passport issued pursuant to this application is punish- 4 able by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1543. The use of a passport in violation of the restrictions contained therein or of the passport regulations is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 USC 1544. 1 ;:,. ..:

to my other rson fo be included in the passpar, or regist&ion, the , ' offinndion) rtheperson to whom the portion is cppllcpble should 1: that the photograph attached is a likeness of me and of those persons

-7Lfl (To be signed at same time by husbond/wife to be included in passport) (To be signed by Applicmt in presence of person odministering ooih)

Subscribed and sworn to (aff~rmed)before me this

(Seal) Consul of the United Stztes at Jakarta, ~hdonesia

IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (See 8 FAM 243, Proc9dures)

1 F P i- E. 0.243

POST LOCATION J3-1Cazt3, Indonssia

lo ALL entries in all sectionsthat apply to you. If information is unknown. PASSPORT ISSUED REGISTRATION APPROVED No. Z3337221 Date b prwided not adequate. PRINT OR TYPE ENTRIES. Date 4/'23/81 Expires TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS Expires 4/2 7/86 CARD OF IDENTITY AND REG. (First name) (Middle name) (Len name) a $3 Application fee No. collected STANLEY ANN DUNHAM a $10 Fee collected Date 17 No Fee passport $5 fee collected (for card) 1. a citizen q Official passport q 48-page q 96-page passpon; of the United States, do hereby apply for (a passport) (registration). SEX (MF) BIRTHPLACE (City, State or Province, Country) BIRTH DATE APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP Month Day Year != bdfcKANSAS, H 1 73, U.S.A. Birth Certificate mssport Nov . 1 29 1 1942 Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship HEIGHT -COLOR OF HAIR COLOR OF EYES SOCIAL SECURITY NO. Date: b 1-474 (Spell out) (Spell out) (Not mandatory) Bearer's Name: Submitted Herewith -- 5 FL 2in. BROWN BROWN 535-40-8522 danceled5 Returned Place: 7- ' - OSnn5Returned NOW RESIDING AT Jalan Daksa 1/14, Kebayoran Baru MY LAST REGISTRATION AS A CITIZEN Jakarta Sel atan, Indonesia OF THE UNITED STATES WAS APPROVED PERMANENT RESIDENCE (Street Address, City, State, U.S. ZIP Code) (If mme as above, Location of Registering Office Date of Registration so indicate) 1617 South Beretania, Apt.1008, Hon., Hawaii

. . Phone No.:

-IF ANSWER IS"YES." EXPLAIN WHEN AND WHY

FATHER'S NAME ~~IRTHPLACEMitt// JA ]FIRTH DATE I U.S. CITIZEN STANLEY DUNHAM I KANSAS ,-'U-.S ;A:*'vlar$Q 163 1 ayes NO I J. V ! - - -. - - - . ------.I II BmMOTHER'SII MA1DEN NAME BIRTHPLACE JYC;KU,-- BIRTH DATE U.S. CITIZEN MADELYN PAYNE I KANSAS, u.s.'A. ONO I

MOST RECENT PASSPORT, STATE ITS 'sue Date:June 2. 1976 COMPLETE IF CHILDREN OR BROTHERS AND SISTERS I tCONSULAROFFlCE USE ONLY1 1 (PHOTO REQUIREMENTS FC UNDER AGE 13 AND/OR WIFE/HUSBAr'- '"'-I" " I PERSONS TO BE INCLUDED) CLUDED AND SUBMIT PHOTO WIFEVS/HUSBAND'S EVIDENCE FULL LEGAL NAME I I Photos must be ONLY of persons I m be included (other than pasaport Submitted Herewith bearer). When more than one person BIRTHPUCE (Citv,Stasw Pwince, Carnay) BIRTH DATE (Mo. Dw,Yr.) Canceled 5 Returned Is to be included, a group phot* Seen 5 Returned graph of the inclusions is required. I 1 1. CHILD(REN)'S NAME(S) BIRTHPLACE(S) BlSTH DATE (S) IN FULL (City,Stste or Country) (Mo., Day, Yr.) CONSULATE WILL STAPLE PHOTO OF INCLUSIONS HERE. q Submitted Herewith DO NOT IMPRESS SEAL ON q Canceled 81 Returned I PHOTOGRAPHS. Seen 5 Returned I I have not (and no other person included in this application has), since acquiring United States citizenship, performed any of the acts listed in section I on the reverse of this application form (unless explanatory statement is attached). I solemnly swear (or affirm) that the statements made on all of the pages of this application are true and the photograph(r) attached is (are) a likeness of m bf those persons to be in ded in

(SEAL) - /L 17 p.- ~5% j S- (To be signed at same time by husbandwlfe to be included in passport) (To be signed b: Applicant in presence of person administering wth)

Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this d-7 day of @vJ I I Vt, 33 Consul of the Unlted States at ?=JLfeC;fa, t / nature of &r6n takin<&$licetion) h OPTIONAL FORM 178 (OVER YOU MUST COMPLETE PAGE 2) January 1978 (FORMERLY FS176J - Dept of State UNmD STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE 1

ON BACK OF FORM IN WHITE AREAS ONLY

------&- MAILING ADDRESS (In Care Of if -Me, Street, CiState, ZIP Code) . I

219 4 k rolclfidnsg~~, w y* (bCa. COLOR OF HAIR HaMEPn€'mE - --& .. . 2 g--:;q;* sio~h~~~al~~~fI I I I I I I I 'a Incherr OODdet (Anre Codel

~#IL/ PPf NE s

NAMEHYRKL

PHONE NUMBER

-- .Pbl:o~bsll~~ LRJad~a~

P h

FOLLOW MUCTIO(YG CAREFUUV-WWMPLEE OR UNACCEPTABLE APPUCATKWs WW.YTHE 168WCE OF YOUR PASSPOUT. ~~~~SERVICES USE ONLY RECORD: Typs of Documnt(t4. Numb, bate Aedthamd. Caut/Placa, Beads Nas as -. n/~l, Evidenca of Name Change Beardswme/ OF-178 1-78 PAGE 2

C 1 TO----- BE COMPLETED - BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION 1 ' .I IMMIGRATED TO THE I RESIDED CONTINUOUSLYINTHE NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE NO. U.S. (Month, year) U.S. From (Year) To (Year) Submitted herewith * q Seen and returned q Previously submitted PLACE NATURALIZED (City, state) NATURALIZATION COURT DATE NATURALIZED I I

' D TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS OCCUPATION [VISIBLE DISTINGUISHING MARKS PROGRAM OFFICER, FORD FOUNDATION none E -EN MUST WPLETE FOLLOYVlNG IF CHILDREN OF A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE ARE MlCLUOED OR IF PRWYMARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3,1931 I WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIEDON IT0 (Full legal name) WHO WAS BORN AT (City, State, Country)

ON (Date of birth) OFORMERHUSBAND WAS U.S. CITIZEN PREVIOUS MARRIAGE TERMINATED BY ODEATHODIVORCE FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT U.S. CITIZEN ON (Date) L -n I -E IF APPLICANT OR ANY Em SECTION B WAS NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AN) CWCrrUENSHP PARBTT(S) * 'ENTERED THE U.S. (Month) (Year) IF FATHER NATURALIZED: IF KNOWN, FATHER'S RESIDENCE/ PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN U.S. Applicant Date Certificate No. From (Year) To (Year) q Wife I q Husband Before (Name of Court) Place (City, State) q Child I I RESIDENCE/CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL IF MOTHER NATURALIZED: IF KNOWJ, MOTHEWS RESIDENCE/ PRESENCE IN U.S. From(Year) To (Year) PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN U.S. Date Certificate No. Applicant From (Year) To (Year)

( Before (Name of Court) Place (City, State) / pl I I I G j( 11 PROPOSED TRAVEL PLANS (Not Mandatorv) I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO RESIDE ABROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING PERIOD AND PURPOSE I Two years contract with Ford Foundation from January 1981 - December 1982. I INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES PERMANENTLY DATE OF DEPARTURE T$ RESIDE WITHIN YEARS-. - MONTHS 1 - - I I ! PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT TR information solicited on this f is authorized by, but not limited to, those statutes codified in Titles 8, 18, and 22, UnitedStatesCode, ndall predecessor statutes whether or no dified, and all regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order 11295 of August 5, 1966. The primary purpoaa for soliciting the information is to establish citizenship, identity and entitlement to issuance of a United Stater Parrport or related facility, and to properly administer and enforce tha laws pertaining thereto. The information is made available as a routine use on a need-to-know basis to personnel of the Department of State and other government agencies hwing statutory or other lawful authority to maintain such information in the performance of their official duties; pursuant to a subpoena or court order; and, as set forth in Part 6a, Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations (See Federal Register Volume 40, pages 45755, 45756,47419 and 47420). Failure to provide the information requested on this form may result in the denial of a United States Passport, related document or rewice to the individual seeking such passport, document or service. NOTE: The disclosure of your Social Security Number or of the identity and location of a person to be notified in the went of death or rcident is entirely voluntary. Howwer, failure to provide this information may prevent the Department of State from providing you with timely assistma or . protection in the event you should encounter an emergency situat:-7 while outside the United States. I! I ACTS OR CONDITIONS (If my of the belowmentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person to be included in the passport, the portion which applies should be struck out, and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.) I have not (and no other person included in this application has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized .r a citizm of a form stam; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the smed forcr of 8 foreign rar; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thoreof; m.d. a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States. WARNING: False statements made knowingly and willfully in passport applications or in affidavits or other supporting documents wbmitmd thwmith are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1001 and/or 18 USC 1542. Alteration or mutiletion of a pslport bud pursuant to this application is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1543. The urof a p.rpat invtoi.tfon of the restrictions contained therein or Of the passport rwulations is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 USC 1644. All Mements and documents submitted are subject to verif icaticn.

- - (FOR USE OF OFFICE TAKING APPLICATION) APPLICANT'S IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT(S) IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT(S) OF WIFE/HUSBAND TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT Certificate of Natural- certificate of Natural- q ization or Citizenship \ q ization or Citizenship No.: U Passport Issue Date: Passport Issue Date: I 0 Drivefs License place of Issue: I Driver's License Place of Issue: I q ~ther(specify): Issued in Name of: I ?tier (~pecif~): Issued in Name of: I

*US. Government Printing 01t1ca: 1977-261-647n239

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 9 ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 1 of 2

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PM:

Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama

Full Former name(s): None

Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991

Registered Business Not available online Address:

Registered Business Phone: Not available online

Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law

Malpractice Insurance: No malpractice report required as (Current as of date of attorney is retired. registration; consult attorney for further information)

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email [email protected]. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630 3/5/2010 ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 2 of 2

page for details.

Return to Search

IARDC ®:online access to registration and discipline information regarding Illinois lawyers presented by the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.

https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630 3/5/2010

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 10 Chapter 3 – Never Vetted

Obama Never Vetted for Constitional Requirements or Even His Legal Right to Work in the U.S., Was it Required?

Introduction-

No Congressional Enforceable Requirement (Law) to Vet Constitutional Qualification of President/Vice President Elect

The 111th Congress and Electors Never Vetted Obama’s Constitutional Qualification

No Federal Agency Vetted Obama

No State Secretary of State or

Election Official Vetted Obama

U.S. President and Senator

Illinois State Senator wasn’t vetted

Conclusion No One in any Official Capacity Has Seen Proof of Natural Born Citizenship or any type of Citizenship

The following Chapter provides very strong evidence that Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER had any of his official records viewed by anyone in any official position in the U.S. federal government or state governments regarding his birth place, citizenship, and possible criminal activity. The reason why Obama’s records have not been viewed by Congress or a federal government agency is that there is no enforceable Congressional requirement for vetting the Constitutional qualifications of President/Vice President Elects or and no directed punishment for not vetting a President Elect. My evidence was proven to be true by a report leaked in the Fall of 2010 from the Congressional Research.

If Congress does not do its job to vet a President Elect, the only way to obtain justice for the Constitution is to go to the branch of government not involved with the election of the President elect – the Judicial Branch – federal court or the Supreme Court or possibly a state court. Some states have removed not constitutionally qualified candidates from the Presidential ballot in the past (California) but failed to investigate Obama’s records even though complaints and even lawsuits were filed by concerned citizens. The failed results of this avenue are addressed in my Obstruction of Justice chapter and include Obama’s Supreme Court nominees Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor who did not recuse themselves on 3 cases challenging the eligibility of Obama and ultimately their judgeship legality .

The hypothesis supported by my research and the Congressional Research XXX, is that Not one member of Congress, Elector of the Electoral College, any state Democratic of Republican party, federal government agency employee including the FBI, Secretary of State, state election board official, judge or state attorney general across the country has ever seen Obama’s original birth certificate or other Presidential qualifying documentation regarding Obama. In addition, no state or federal agency while he was Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator and now President of the United States required Obama to provide proof that he is able to work legally in the country. Theoretically, Obama could be an illegal alien.

No Enforceable Requirement

to Vet President/Vice President Elect -

the 111th Congress and Electors Failed to Vet Obama, but 110th Vetted McCain

Federal Vetting HR 1503 was introduced by Representative Posey(but not even brought to a vote) and would require a candidate be vetted for meeting the Presidential Constitutional requirements before being placed on the ballot. By having to introduce this bill, it proves a lack of a current enforceable vetting process which requires “proof” of Constitutional qualifications, not hearsay or insufficient evidence by a candidate like Obama.

The Constitution gives Congress the opportunity for vetting a President and Vice President Elect and to the states through the Electoral College and ballot control.

20th Amendment

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. 12th Amendment

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Article 2, Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector

………..

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The electoral college has never formally vetted a President elect’s Constitutional qualifications before. Electors are appointed by a party with the intent and by state law, for them to vote the party line regardless of the candidate’s legal qualifications. Twenty-four states have laws that require the elector to vote the party line. When an elector does not vote for their party’s candidate they are referred to as a “faithless” elector. According to research done by Saint Leo University there have only been 156 faithless votes in our country’s history. A Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214) further takes away any discretion of the elector to vote his conscience. For example, even if an elector believed his party’s candidate may be ineligible, he would feel pressured to vote the party line or be replaced.

An effort was made by a group called Democrat Disaster to inform every Democrat elector in the county that there was a potential problem with Obama’s eligibility. The letter asked them to take action on investigating the matter further. All letters were sent certified mail and not one Democrat elector called for an investigation. You can read more about this effort in the Citizen Activism chapter.

As demonstrated by the first document from the Office of Personnel Management, responsibility for vetting a President-Elect lies with Congress. However, California has in the distant past removed a Presidential candidate from the ballot for not meeting the age requirement. California did fail to vet Obama for the 2008 ballot as did all of the other secretaries of state. This is said with 100% confidence because not one SOS has claimed to have seen Obama’s long form birth certificate. This website also has letters/emails from all of the Secretaries of State that confirm they are not responsible for vetting Presidential or other federal candidates. http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Vetting_Candidates Many Secretaries of State were sued to vet Obama, but they all said they had no duty to vet a Presidential candidate – some said that it was the party’s responsibility. Many emails were obtained that confirmed these statements. The DNC failed to answer my requests for proof they vetted Obama. Electors could have acted by not giving their votes or by having an investigation performed, but failed to do so. Some Representatives and Senators say it’s the court’s job to vet Obama’s Constitutional qualifications and Justice Clarence Thomas in Congressional testimony recently hinted that the court was avoiding the Obama eligibility issue. So citizens, many of them veterans or currently serving in the Reserve, had to act when our government failed to do so by filing lawsuits and criminal complaints against Obama for not being Constitutionally qualified. Not one lawsuit was successful at getting access to Obama’s vital records (the DOJ and private attorneys represented Obama to block his records) or having a court make a ruling whether he is a Natural Born Citizen under the intent of the founders and according to SCOTUS and other federal rulings.

Obama’s citizenship and birth certificate were also not vetted while he was an Illinois State Senator; so America only has Obama’s and Chiyome Fukino’s (Hawaii Health Department Director hearsay that he was born in the United States. Once discovery is obtained on Obama’s birth location and parentage, and whether he currently is a legal citizen, a federal court of law can make the final determination on his legality of being the POTUS/CINC.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT NO ONE IN THE ILLINOIS STATE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN AN ORIGINAL HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT HAS EVALUATED AND RELEASED HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS FROM THE TIME HE WAS BORN UNTIL CURRENT TIMES.

OBAMA COULD NOT BE LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. NO ONE KNOWS THE CITIZENSHIP OF OBAMA EXCEPT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WHO WILL NOT RELEASE IMMIGRATION RECORDS ON OBAMA’S INDONESIAN NAME – BARRY SOETORO aka Soebarkah (from his mother’s passport records). This is covered in the Obstructing Justice Chapter.

This letter was a response from a FOIA request that the author had submitted asking whether federally elected officials (President, Vice President, Senators and Respresentatives) had to undergo background checks before or soon after taking office. This is the most shocking of all of the documents that I have accumulated regarding the vetting process.

The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires investigations of White House staff working for the President, but did not require that the President, Vice President, Senators or Representatives be investigated by any of the agencies that perform background investigations – including the FBI. Consequently, Obama did not undergo a background check as a U.S. Senator or for the Office of the President. (Documents appear on next page and pages 2 and 3 of the document are left out for brevity. Underlining done for emphasis by author.) The OPM claims pride in safeguarding the country as a result of the background checks the perform, but who is checking on the federally elected officials?

This email from Representative McClintock’s office also supports the fact that no birth certificate or I-9 Form are required to start working as U.S. Representative or Senator. Consequently, the current acting President could be an illegal alien and not legally able to work in the United States and we wouldn’t know it. If Congress does not do their job of enforcing the Constitutional requirements for POTUS, Vice POTUS, Senators and Representatives, there very well could be non-citizens working as our elected federal officials.

This only left the vetting of Obama to Congress. Did they vet Obama? No, they did not. The press had the option to vet Obama, but failed to do so as well.

Congress vetted Senator John McCain with Senate Resolution 511 and McCain provided a copy of his original Panama birth certificate. They however did nothing to investigate Obama even though he failed to provide an original birth certificate for their viewing and admitted that he had a foreign citizen father. No one in Congress has ever reported to have seen a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. You will see the common theme of failing to vet Obama’s Constitutional qualifications properly.

As evident in Congress’s passing un-Constitutional laws, the members do not understand or care about upholding the Constitution especially the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requirement to be POTUS. It is not a surprise that even Senator Diane Feinstein only states Obama is a citizen and makes no statement that Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Feinstein and many other congressmen also say Obama is qualified because of the 14th Amendment even though that amendment makes no reference to Natural Born Citizen.

Other Congressmen repeatedly referred to Obama’s online Hawaii Certification of Live Birth as proof he was born in Hawaii and proof he is a Natural Born Citizen. It is frightening that America’s leaders would be so naïve in the age of altering online photo images and producing forged birth certificates.

Some Congressmen just say that he is qualified because he is a “citizen” and completely ignore the Natural Born Citizen requirement such as Senator Diane Feinstein who is both on the Intelligence and the Judiciary committees. Some also reference the unsworn statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, of the Hawaii Department of Health as evidence when she does not have the qualifications to make the determination of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or if he is a Natural Born Citizen. Recently, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie stated publicly that he could not find or produce an original long form birth certificate for Obama – so this means that Fukino lied when she had seen an original birth certificate and many in Congress and millions of citizen relied on her unsworn statements.

Also an embarrassment to our country is that U.S. congressmen relied on online and political organizations for “proof” that Obama is legally qualified to be POTUS.

The following letters will further prove that Congress NEVER VETTED Obama. NOT ONE PERSON IN CONGRESS SAW A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA. A birth certificate would be the starting point to establish Natural Born Citizenship. To note, head of the DNC Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Obama as being Constitutionally qualified, failed to respond to my letters and emails. Senator McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.

And I thought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyl seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obama’s records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.

RICHARD SHELBY ALABAMA

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0103

Ms. Terri Storm ~resident/CED Storm Consulting Group 4524 Park Avenue Bessenler, Alabama 35022-4184

Dear Ms. Storm:

Thaw -fdr taking -the time toi-mtact -me-out- President-elect Barack Obamals citizenship status, I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.

Under the United States Constitution, Section 1 of Article I1 contains a clause that states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who ahall. slot have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United state^.^

Many have contacted me regarding the numerous claims and lawsuits circulating on the internet asserting that Obama is not a natural horn. citizen, and therefore ineligible to become United States President. However, President-elect Obama ha~lpresented hia birth certificate, showing that he was born in Hawaii, and it has been verified and confirmed by Hawaiian officia2a. Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to act on any of the cases contesting Obamats citizenship. On January 8, 20D9, Members of Congress were given the opportunity to contest the iesue in a joint session of Congress, but no such - - objecyh was rssed during tG-meeting , By-all acc&&, President-elect Barack Obama meats those requirements. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation should further issues arise.

Thank you again for contacting me. If X may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Richard Shelby JEFF SESSIONS AfASAMA fwm-- mamY UWlW AND NATURAL WRCS sllOwF

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0104 January 23,2009

Mrs. Terri Storm 4524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama 35022

Dear Mrs. Storm:

Thank you for your recent letter re@ig President Barack Obama.

As you are stories s I - aware, have circulated that call int~question President Qbama' 7itizmship. Additionally, various lawsuits have bem filed alleging that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is conshtionaIIy ineligible for the office of - I president. However, in June 2008, hsident Obama released a digitally scanned image ofhis birth certificate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Hdth, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity.

As you may know, on January 8,2009, Congress certified and diedthe Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United States.

The office of the presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no matter who occupies the position. As we move forward, Americans should expect Congress and the president to work together to iind substantive solutions to the pressing issues that our nation faces today.

Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance t~ you.

------. . - - -. . -. - 1

United States Senator JS: cd Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2 Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 2 of 2 With all of the evidence uncovered regarding the lack of vetting of Federal candiates on the ballot, I then thought that the states would be the same way and my assumptions proved to be correct. The next emails and documents prove that no one in the State of Illinois in any official capacity was required to view a birth certifcate for Barack Hussein Obama in his bid and election for the Illinois State Senate. Obama was also not required to complete a Federal I-9 Form to be able to receive pay and benefits. Consequently, again Obama could have been a non- citizen or illegal alien or non-citizen when serving as an Illinois Senator which is against the Illinois Constitution and Illinois election laws.

The Secretaries of State in each state are ultimately responsible for the elections in their respective state. None of the states in the country vetted Obama’s Constitutional qualifications because they do not normally do that. Most SOS’s stated it was the political party’s job and a few said cited election officials. The Illiniois Secretary of State’s Office states that “The Secretary of State does not perform any type of background investigation on candidates. The Secretary of State does not verify identity, age, residency, and citizenship of candidates.”

The Illinois Board of Elections does not qualify candiates for state or federal office as well. See their responsibilities on next page.

http://www.elections.state.il.us/AboutTheBoard/BoardFunctions.aspx 3/18/2010

The Illinois State Assembly which governs Illinois State Senators and Representatives also does nothing to verify that their elected represtatives meet the legal requirements under the Illinois Constitution. See next page.

Finally, instead of our Department of Justice assuring the American people that Obama is who he says he is, they represent or assist him in court to continue to block access to his vital records – more on this in the Obstruction of Justice Chapter. Millions of Americans, including soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen, have doubts as well as evidenced by the many polls regarding Obama’s birth place. A majority does not know where he was born or if he’s a legal President. The DOJ fails to state that Obama had been vetted by the government; they instead agree and site the unlawful ruling made by Judge James Robertson which states the citizenry (who has absolutely no access to any of Obama’s records) had vetted Obama through blogs and Twitter. See DOJ citation below.

Strunk v. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)

The DOJ states that they are not responsible for vetting alleged fraud crimes relating to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications even though they are. look at the DOJ’s website for crimes they investigate. The DOJ instead states the Federal Election Commission is responsible for investigating which is untrue. See next page for letter that will also be filed under the Obstruction Chapter. See below for list of crimes that the FBI, which is under the DOJ, investigates.

From the page What we investigate --

Criminal Priorities

4. Public Corruption - Government Fraud - Election Fraud - Foreign Corrupt Practices http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

If the FBI would have done a background investigation on Obama, just on public records alone, they would have found a highly suspect background check results of Obama which would have merited looking into for potential money laundering and other fraud crimes. Author includes full list of names and address of the following report so that other researchers may be able to shed some light on this report that closely mirrors the report given by Neil Sankey, a California licensed private investigator and a former Scotland Yard detective. Many of these entries disappeared after they were made public. More on this in the Obstruction Chapter.

As laid out in the Chapter – Never Vetted, it is absolutely clear that no one any official government position in Illinois or the Federal government has seen proof that Obama is even able to legally work in the United State, yet be a U.S. Senator or President.

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 11 The Party for Socialism and Liberation is running candidates in the 2012 Presidential Elections

Peta Lindsay Yari Osorio PSL Candidate for President PSL Candidate for Vice President

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is proud to announce that our party is fielding a slate of candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States in the 2012 elections.

PSL member and Howard University graduate Peta Lindsay is the PSL’s presidential candidate. PSL member Yari Osorio, an immigrant from Colombia now living in New York City, is the vice-presidential candidate. The party also will run candidates in various cities across the country. To learn more about the PSL’s participation in the 2012 elections, visit www.VotePSL.org.

Meet Peta Lindsay Meet Yari Osorio

Lindsay, 27, is a founding member of the PSL and Osorio, 26, has helped to lead dozens of anti-war a member of the PSL’s Central Committee. For and anti-racist demonstrations in New York City over a decade, she has helped lead countless and Washington, D.C. As a student at John Jay demonstrations across the country against im- CUNY, he co-founded Justice in Action, a social perialist wars, racism, budget cuts, tuition hikes, justice club on campus, and helped organize police brutality, anti-LGBT bigotry, and in sup- for students’ rights across CUNY campuses. He port of immigrant rights, women’s rights and the helped lead the PSL’s campaign to stop the New Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, York Police Department’s racist “stop and frisk” and has been a tireless advocate for the rights of policy targeting Black and Latino working-class working people and for socialism. communities.

www.VotePSL.org Chicago: 773-920-7590 Washington, D.C.: 202-234-2828 New York: 212-694-8762 Los Angeles: 323-810-3380 San Francisco: 415-821-6171 Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY

California's Feminist Socialist Political Party search...

Home National California About Us PFP Net Contact Us Membership Articles Calendar

Home Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"

Share this

Posted on February 8, 2011 by the State Central Committee

The following press release and statement were issued by the State Central Committee of the UPCOMING EVENTS California Peace and Freedom Party on February 8, 2011. MEDIA RELEASE Ongoing - Solidarity with Occupy Wall St. February 8, 2012

For further information: C.T. Weber (916) 422-5395 or (916) 320-9186 WE SUPPORT ...

SECRETARY OF STATE LIST OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Join the Peace and Freedom CALLED "UNLAWFUL" AFTER PARTY'S CANDIDATES Party's fund-raising LEFT OFF JUNE 5 PRIMARY BALLOT campaign! Click here to drop $20.12 on us in 2012. SACRAMENTO – The Secretary of State's office has omitted two of the four Presidential candidates on the Peace and Freedom Party's primary ballot – and the independent party is demanding to know why. SEE IT NOW! A NEWS CONFERENCE is scheduled at 10 a.m. Thursday (2-9-12) at the SOS office (11th & O Streets) to provide details. Peace and Freedom Party State Chairperson C. T. Weber will WATCH THESE LIVE FEEDS be present. Occupy Fresno

SOS Debra Bowen has yet to respond, and in a statement issued today, Weber cites Elections Occupy Los Angeles Code sections that specify how presidential primary candidates are supposed to be selected by PREAMBLE TO OUR Occupy Wall Street BY-LAWS the Secretary of State, and suggests that code sections covering other parties may have improperly been applied to the Peace and Freedom Party candidates. October 2011 Coalition (Washington) The Peace and Freedom Party is "No Secretary of State has ever overruled our party's report listing our primary candidates," says an open, multi-tendency, Weber, "until this mistaken decision by Secretary Bowen." He also cites a failure by the movement-oriented socialist party. Secretary of State to consult party county chairs, as specifically required in the Elections Code, We are united in our common and accuses Bowen of failing to consider as required by law the letter submitted to her by UPDATES BY EMAIL commitment to socialism, Weber on behalf of the Peace and Freedom Party State Executive Committee that listed all four Subscribe to our email democracy, feminism and unionism candidates for inclusion. and our common opposition to notification service and you capitalism, imperialism, racism, In the list announced Monday night, Bowen included Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson on will receive one email sexism and elitism. the ballot, but omitted Peta Lindsay and Stephen Durham. Weber was unable to get an message each day there is explanation when he went to the Secretary of State's Sacramento office the next morning, and an update to the front page. These by-laws do not define reports that officials in the office refused to divulge what criteria Bowen used to make her socialism, nor do they identify the choices, who was present at the meeting, where the criteria were developed, and whether strategies and tactics of how to Bowen herself was present at the meeting. Enter your email address: achieve socialism. We agree that socialism is necessary and that it Richard Becker of San Francisco, a spokesman for the Peta Lindsay campaign, calls the will open up a democratic decision- omission of her name "absolutely unjustifiable under the law." making process for appropriate use Candidate Stephen Durham of New York City says "I strongly object to the attempt by the of resources and distribution of California Secretary of State to steal away the rights of those who want to vote for a bona fide labor. Delivered by FeedBurner socialist feminist candidate for president."

"Our voters are seriously considering four candidates, and they deserve to have the Secretary DONATE of State follow the law and list all four on the primary ballot," Weber said.

Support our work to build an -30- alternative party! Make an online STATEMENT OF C.T. WEBER, PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY CALIFORNIA STATE CHAIR donation to the Peace and Freedom Party now! February 8, 2012

Late on February 6th Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office released her list of candidates for SOCIAL NETWORKS

1 of 3 2/25/2012 10:47 PM Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

Or mail your check made out to President of the United States who would appear on the primary election ballots of the various Visit us on these networking "Peace and Freedom Party" to PO parties in the presidential preference section. Breaking the precedent of the previous 36 years, and media sites. Box 24764, Oakland, CA, 94623. this list for the first time omits many or most of the candidates reported to her by the state chairs Thank you. of some of the political parties, including two of the four candidates that I reported to her were Facebook found by our State Executive Committee to be serious seekers of the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. (While Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson were listed, Stephan Durham and WHO'S ONLINE Peta Lindsay were omitted.) Twitter

We have 68 guests online Visiting her office yesterday, I found that her staff was determined to keep secret the criteria used by the Secretary of State in selecting her choices for the ballot, refused to tell me who MySpace attended the meeting at which the criteria were determined, refused to tell me whether Bowen was present at that meeting, and refused to justify in any way her omission of candidates who YouTube are clearly serious about obtaining the Peace and Freedom Party nomination, and generally considered serious candidates by party activists (and by their opponents). I was told, to my astonishment, that Bowen could list any names she pleased without any logical criteria at all. Photobucket This is not what it says in the elections code.

In fact, the Elections Code (section 6720) states that the Secretary of State shall include the names of candidates recognized throughout California as active candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for President. All four of the names submitted are in fact those of candidates who are recognized, and have some support, from all areas of California, as well as various other parts of the country. This may not be apparent from reports in the commercial media, but Peace and Freedom Party activists have never depended on the commercial media for their information about presidential candidacies, as the commercial media rarely mention our candidates at all. The publications of various groups on the left, the blogs and websites and e-mail lists used by those on the left to communicate with each other, and communication at meetings and rallies through word-of-mouth and leaflets, are the "media" used by Peace and Freedom members to learn about the various candidates who seek our presidential nomination.

It appears possible that the Secretary of State may have unlawfully developed a list of criteria for selecting recognized candidates that is the same for candidates in all parties. In fact, the criteria in the election code differ for each party. For example, coverage in the news media is a legal criterion in the American Independent Party (EC section 6520), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. Qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act is included in the criteria for the Democratic Party (EC section 6041), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. The unjustifiable secrecy being maintained around the Secretary of State's list of criteria may conceal the mistaken and unlawful development of a common list of criteria for all parties, and if this is the case, the Secretary of State should come clean, and admit the mistake, while adding the improperly omitted candidates to the list for the ballot.

The Elections Code (section 6721) provides that the Secretary of State shall ask the State Chair and the County Chairs of the Peace and Freedom Party for information regarding presidential candidates, and states that any information they wish to submit "will be considered by the Secretary of State." In fact, in 2012, the Secretary of State failed to make this request of the various County Chairs, although their names and contact information are available to her, and obviously failed to consider the information submitted by the State Chair on behalf of the State Executive Committee of the party. This is not a choice available to the Secretary of State under the law, but is a lapse and a failure to follow the law.

While those omitted may circulate petitions among Peace and Freedom Party voters to have their names added, this is a serious burden that is not supposed to be imposed on generally recognized candidates. It is highly unfair to list two of the recognized candidates, but force the other two of them to put in substantial work and money to obtain the primary ballot access the first two have without this work and expenditure.

The Elections Code (section 6722) states that the Secretary of State may add to her announced selections after the announcement is made. I strongly urge Secretary of State Bowen to consider the information now being submitted to her office to demonstrate that all four of the candidates reported to her by our party as serious candidates are indeed serious candidates, and announce at the earliest possible date the addition of the two omitted candidates to the list of those who will appear on the ballot.

I further urge Secretary of State Bowen, who was elected and re-elected as the candidate who would make the functioning of her office more transparent, to release her criteria for selecting candidates for the presidential preference primary, the names of those present when those criteria were developed, and how those criteria were used to select two but omit two others on the list submitted by the Peace and Freedom Party's elected leadership.--C.T. Weber, California State Chair, Peace and Freedom Party

2 of 3 2/25/2012 10:47 PM Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

VOTER REGISTRATION RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY WEBSITE

In California, voter registration is List All Candidates for Peace and Freedom Primary very important to political parties. 2012 Campaign Begins The very existence of a political Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" party as "ballot-qualified" is determined by the number of A Proposal for Going National votes its statewide candidates Peace and Freedom is Going National! receive or by the number of Introducing the Peace and Freedom Alliance voters registered with the party. 2011-12-18 Occupy Peace and Freedom? in Oakland As the only feminist socialist Support These Ballot Measures political party on the California ballot, it is imperative that the Occupy Oakland & Organized Labor Plan to Shut Down Port Peace and Freedom Party Small Parties Sue to Block Prop. 14 continues as a qualified party. Attacks Mislead the Public Quite simply, the Peace and Forum on the Occupy Movement, November 12 in Los Angeles Freedom Party will not be able to Workers and War, November 5 in Berkeley provide Californians with candidates that will represent us City of Oakland Special Election unless we register and vote Let them fail: Krugman agrees with Ruyle on solving the fiscal crisis, sort of Peace and Freedom.

For more information about registering to vote in California, you can visit the Secretary of State's website.

3 of 3 2/25/2012 10:47 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

this fact needs to be brought up -Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for Subject: Constitutional

From: P. B. ([email protected])

To: [email protected];

Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:07 PM

Ed, talked with this Toni that received the email from the SOS and confirmed it was a true copy to him.. she said she would get it notarized but as expected the leftist didn't come through. Ed will notarize this email for an exhibit. also is the flyer that is referred to on her website as an exhibit and the peace and freedom press release all attached.

we need to show the ultra vires to get the judge to hear this before the ballot is finalized and the supplement is passed.

pamela

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: P. B. To: Christopher Strunk ; Edward C. Noonan ; POLITCAL George Miller Cc: Mark Seidenbert Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:16 PM Subject: Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for Constitutional

see below for proof of SOS vetting candidate for 2012 potus ballot for consitutional qualifications.

Pamela

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Markham Robinson To: 'P. B.' Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:53 PM Subject: RE: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino

From: Kevin Akin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino

Mark, I hope you will pardon me for using the AIP as a bogey-man in my e-mail to the Secretary of State's office.

You really should have a copy of the e-mail (just below mine) from the Secretary of State's office to Toni

1 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

Mendocino. In it, they acknowledge assessing the constitutional qualifications of a candidate, and excluding her from the ballot on this basis. Thought this might interest you! -Kevin

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:17:42 -0800

Dear anonymous person from Legislative and Constituent Affairs. I have received a much-forwarded copy of the e-mail below. I am a member of the Peace and Freedom Party California Executive Committee (and Chair of our National Organizing Committee), and have served three terms as State Chair. I am apparently more familiar with the Peace and Freedom Party sections of the Elections Code than whoever wrote this astonishing response to Ms. Mendocino.

I am even more astonished by some of the oral responses we have received from various people in your office. For example, Charlene Castaneda (I think I got her name right) told one caller that the Secretary of State's decision on whom to include was "irreversible." This is clearly contrary to the plain language of the Elections Code: (EC6722) "Following this announcement, the Secretary of State may add to her or his selection, but she or he may not delete any candidate whose name appears on the announced list." What part of this sentence does your office not understand? The code says names may be added, but your office says they may not.

It appears to have escaped your office's attention that different standards are found in the code section for each political party as to what names should be included. "Being referred to in the news media" is in fact included in a section of the Elections Code, but it is the section governing the American Independent Party (EC6520). This was intentionally not included in the Peace and Freedom Party section (EC6720). So holding a candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination to the standard set for the American Independent Party's candidates is clearly improper and unlawful. Federal Election Commission filings are mentioned - but not in the PFP section of the code. Several of our low-budget presidential nominees have not in fact had a campaign office, but in the past this did not keep them off the ballot - presumably because the Secretary of State's staff read the Elections Code, and noted that this is not a requirement for PFP candidates.

I am going to leave aside for the moment the question of Peta Lindsay. Let me take up Stephen Durham. At the time your announcement was made, he was a generally-recognized candidate for the PFP nomination throughout California (as you were correctly advised by State Chair C.T. Weber). This is the ONLY hurdle he was supposed to clear, according to our section of the code. But by dragging in criteria from other parties' sections of the code, and doing a really sloppy job of research, you invented reasons to omit him. While he only filed with the FEC some hours before your announcement was made, he had in fact filed at the time the announcement was made. However, this was not really a requirement. At the time your announcement was made, he already had two premises (both the standard storefronts usually used in campaigns, one in Los Angeles and one in San Francisco ) that served as campaign offices. (He has others around the country as well.) But apparently no one in your office thought to call up his campaign and ask. I am sure they would have been happy to give you the addresses. Stephen Durham has a campaign website (though this is clearly not a legal requirement, as this code section was adopted in 1975, when no one at all had a website). You may find its address, and a link to it, on the Peace and Freedom Party website, along with links to the other three campaign websites. Could it actually be true that no one looked on our party website in their wonderfully exhaustive research?

2 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

No debates among Peace and Freedom Party candidates have yet taken place, and this has almost always been the case at this point on the presidential election year calendar. I am afraid you have confused us with the Republican Party. This is one reason why our code section does not mention participation in debates as a criterion. Several debates are now scheduled (three in April, for example), and it is understood that Stehen Durham will participate in some of those. I have already demonstrated that media coverage is not a requirement in our code section. But in fact, of course, Stephen Durham is mentioned in many media reports, and was from the date he announced his candidacy. Do your office computers not have a connection to Google? Mine does, and I can find an amazing number of reports, mentions, and even extensive articles. They are generally not in the billionnaires' newspapers, but that is not where Peace and Freedom Party members look for information about their presidential candidates.

Whoever flubbed the job so shamefully in researching the legal criteria for Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary candidates also seems to have overlooked the most important part of this section of the code (EC6721, "Secretary of State to send letter to central committees." It says that the SoS is to send a letter by first-class mail to each Peace and Freedom Party County Central Committee (addresses easily available both from the various Registrars of Voters, and through various links on our website), by the 150th day before the primary election, "informing them that, while a response is not required, any information they wish to submit will be considered by the Secretary of State in the determination of candidates to be placed on the Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary ballot pursuant to Section 6720." Now that, I think, is as clear as anyone could make it. As it happens, I have been the County Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party in Riverside County for many years (though I hope to turn that over to someone else soon), and over the years I have received a number of such letters from previous Secretaries of State. But not this year. I didn't get such a letter, and none of my fellow county chairs around the state got such a letter. That is because the present Secretary of State either was ignorant of this code section, or decided to defy it. No such letter was sent. Absent input from the various county central committees, the office of the Secretary of State apparently decided to just wing it - and crashed. Most of the county central committees would have advised the Secretary of State that there are four recognized candidates for our presidential nomination, and given their names. A few county central committees might have omitted one or another name, but the pattern would have been clear.

Let me just make a point about Peta Lindsay, the presidential candidate (who certainly has a very active campaign!) who is reportedly 27 years old. Her age is of course a factor in whether she is likely to gain the nomination, but that should be up to the voters and State Central Committee members who will make the decision. In actual fact, the very first presidential nominee of California 's Peace and Freedom Party, back in 1968, was not yet 35 years of age. The Secretary of State at that time had the ballots printed without his name, and only the name of the Vice-Presidential candidate was on the ballot over the Peace and Freedom Party name to represent our slate of electors. But the Secretary of State did not put his heavy thumb on the scales in our intra-party consideration of whom to nominate. He accepted the slate of candidates for elector, and the Party's name went on the ballot.

I understand that the Secretary of State won a lawsuit a while back (brought by some American Independent Party leaders) seeking to force her to review the actual constitutional qualifications of various parties' nominees. She won, on the basis that it is up to the parties to select their nominees and do their own consideration of constitutional eligibility, and no business of the Secretary of State. Now the Secretary of State has taken the opposite tack, which I would think would open up this whole question again. I have already received reports that the AIP is delighted that the SoS has been so foolish as to reveal, in writing, that she does in fact look at constitutional eligibility - when it suits her. You may be sure that next time the birthers in the AIP bring suit, they will be armed with full information about the Peta Lindsay case, proving that the SoS only takes that position when she likes. You would be far wiser to accept the fact that Peta Lindsay is a serious and generally recognized candidate for our nomination, and go ahead and list her.

As your response to Ms. Mendocino was (rather strangely) anonymous, I do not know who wrote or sent

3 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

it. So I am sending this e-mail to the same address from which it came, and also sending blind copies to at least a dozen other people who work in the Secretary of State's office, in hopes that someone will read it and respond to me.

I would truly appreciate being advised that someone has, at last, read the relevant sections of the Elections Code, and recognized that the Secretary of State may add to the list of presidential preference candidates she is putting on the ballot. While the campaigns are preparing to demand ballot placement through petition, this is a big burden that they don't need. It should be perfectly clear by now, to any but the most wrong-headed and stubborn, that all four candidates are in fact recognized throughout California as candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. This is the only requirement in the Elections Code, and the two omitted candidates should be added.

I would appreciate a response. -Kevin Akin, member of the Peace and Freedom Party California Executive Committee

Kevin Akin 20212 Harvard Way Riverside, California 92507 home (951) 787-0318 cell (951) 675-2813 [email protected]

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs" To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now!

Dear Ms. Mendicino:

Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State about the individuals in the Peace and Freedom Party who were not included in the Secretary of State's Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates List for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.

To determine whether a person is "generally recognized" as actively running for president, the Secretary of State's office looks at whether a candidate is actively running a presidential campaign, such as having a campaign office, a campaign website, making Federal Election Commission filings, participating in debates, and being referred to in the news media. Absent embarking on or completing any of these basic tasks, a person certainly could not be considered a "generally recognized" candidate.

In addition, the Secretary of State's office reviewed Peta Lindsay's website where the candidate states she is 27 years old. Since the United States Constitution states "...neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years...", Peta Lindsay does not qualify as a presidential candidate for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.

4 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

People in any political party who still wish to be included on the California ballot as a presidential candidate may circulate nomination petitions, the procedure for which is included in the Qualiﬁcation and Requirements document, found on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012‐elections/june‐primary/pdf/minor‐party‐president‐2012.pdf.

The Secretary of State takes very seriously the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the ballot and the entire electoral process is maintained.

Sincerely,

Legislative and Constituent Aﬀairs Secretary of State

From: Toni Mendicino [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:36 PM To: Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs Cc: Secretary of State Bowen Subject: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now!

Dear Secretary of State Bowen,

I spoke on February 9 with your analyst Philly Crosby about this matter, rather unsatisfactorily; she instructed me to send you a letter. I am the Bay Area Freedom Socialist 2012 Presidential Campaign coordinator and strongly protest your exclusion of our candidate, Stephen Durham, from the Peace and Freedom Party primary ballot, along with Peta Lindsay. An egregious mistake has been made by your office in this decision and I urge you to rectify it immediately as is in your legal purview and as is your responsibility as the Secretary of State.

Our candidate most certainly does meet the California election code criteria and has the full backing of the Peace and Freedom Party. We have not received an explanation for your arbitrary decision despite numerous inquiries, which is frankly unacceptable. I also request that I be given a response about how and when you will reverse this illegal action. What you did violated our rights as working people to vote for the candidates we support and is part of a national context of attempts to deny the right to vote to millions of poor, working and immigrant people. Do you really want to be on that side of history? This situation is particularly ironic given your 2011 Congressional race slogan, "Democracy For All, Right Here in America !" I hope you will do the right thing and list all the Peace and Freedom Party candidates on the ballot, and I look forward to hearing back from you about this timely issue.

5 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM Print http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

Sincerely,

Toni Mendicino Bay Area Freedom Socialist Party and Campaign Coordinator 415-730-2917 (cell)

P Save the Earth, one page at a time. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

6 of 6 3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 12 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”

The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 1 of 9 authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits.

The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support.

The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws of the United States." The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 2 of 9 of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.”

Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 3 of 9 have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.

Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a 'natural born Citizen' using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial." This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen." Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship).

Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wong Kim Ark, at 686.

Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 4 of 9 minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.

Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents.

Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.

Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another.

Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a "natural born Citizen" when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural- born citizen” in Minor.

The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue. Hence, its statement that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 5 of 9 Ankeny was advisory on the "natural born Citizen" issue because it gave us its definition of a "natural born Citizen" but never applied that definition to Obama's personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a "natural born Citizen" to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a "natural born Citizen" is purely advisory.

To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.”

The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama's eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the nonmoving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint.

The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 6 of 9 United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.”

As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.”

So, any citation to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen” is. In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Judge Malihi's definition must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen." The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural born Citizen" which means a child born in the country to citizen parents.

The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted.

A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parents requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parents requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 7 of 9 "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) "born . . . citizen of the United States" can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a "subject to the jurisdiction" analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II "natural born Citizen," who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States" who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship.

If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and longstanding definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States.

A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 8 of 9 soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the United States. Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born. Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States. Clearly, “considered” does not mean found. Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.

Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading. The time- honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ####

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 9 of 9

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 13 FILED OSAl l OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIW HEARINGS FEB 0 3 2012 STATE OF GEORGIA

DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY, : THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH, Valcric 111111; Legal /\ssistiil~t : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- Plaintiffs, : 1215136-60-MALIHI v. : Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz

BARACK OBAMA, : Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

Defendant.

DAVID P. WELDEN,

Plaintiff, : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1215 137-60-MALIHI v. : Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. hion BARACK OBAMA, : Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant.

CART, SWENSSON,

Plaintiff, : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 12162 1 8-60-MALIHI v. : Counsel for Plaintiff J. Mark Hatfield BARACK OBAMA, : Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant.

KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,

Plaintiff, : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1216823-60-MALIHI v. : Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield BARACK OBAMA, : Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant. DECISION^

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant President Barack Obama does not meet Georgia's eligibility requirements for candidacy in Georgia's 2012 presidential primary election.

Georgia law mandates that candidates meet constitutional and statutory requirements for the office that they seek. O.C.G.A. 5 21-2-5(a). Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States. Id. The United

States Constitution requires that a President be a "natural born [clitizen." U.S. Const. art.

11, 5 1, cl. 5.

As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs' challenges to this Court for a hearing. O.C.G.A. 5 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on

January 26, 2012. .The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy,

Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin

Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden and his counsel Van R. Irion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither

Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the

Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the

1 This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section I1 applies to all Plaintiffs. Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing. I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al.

Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth contend that President Barack

Obama is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention, Plaintiffs assert that Mr.

Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth

certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use hslegal name on his notice of candidacy, which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (P1.s' Am. Compl. 3.)

At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)-(9). The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1 -2-. 18(10).

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations.3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony fi-om several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State,

219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth

Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was sworn and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz step-down and submit any further testimony in writing. 3 The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-iurv". cases that discretion lies with the judge. See Mustang Transp., Inc. v. W. W. Lowe & Sons, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 350, 352 (1971). certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Dufee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved).

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the

Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive. 11. Application of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement

Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the

United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary

election. As indicated supra, the United States Constitution states that "[nlo person

except a natural born Citizen. . . shall be eligible for the Office of the President . . . .'4

U.S. Const. art. 11, 5 1, cl. 5.

For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) I Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United

States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time

of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the

United States. The Court does not agree.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and

issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an I eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear

distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the I difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was

4 The definition of this clause has been the source of much debate. See, e.g., Gordon, aoCan Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988); Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349 (2000); William T. Han, Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010). ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.

The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempting to ascertain the definition of

"natural born citizen" because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685-86;

See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1 875) ("The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."); see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1 898) (noting that the only mention of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution is in Article 11, and the term is not defined in the Constitution).

The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the

Fourteenth Amendment and Article I1 (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685

(citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 8 1. ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States . . . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the fiamers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens 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.

Id. at 167-68. Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court's decision in Minor as defining natural born citizens as only "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens." 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the

Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.

Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the

Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" in the

Fourteenth Amendment and "natural born citizen of the United States" in Article I1 to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the

United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment. . . ." Id. at 686

(citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution." Id. (citing Wong Kim

Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that "[tlhe interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are fiamed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (internal citation omitted). The

Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.' Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at

705.

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.

169 U.S. at 655.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

Id. at 658. Further:

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

Id. at 660 (quoting Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J., concurring)). And:

The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

Id. at 662 (quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 576 (1856) (Curtis, J., dissenting)). Finally:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

Id. at 662-63 (quoting United States v. Rhodes, (1866) (Mr. Justice Swayne)). Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that

persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article 11, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [I natural-born citizens."

916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack

Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a I citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

CONCLUSION i

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21 -2-5(b).

SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

6 This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Exhibit 14 Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012) Barack Obama Democratic Obama for America PO Box 803638 Chicago, IL 60680 Phone: (312) 698-3670 Website: www.barackobama.com

Newt Gingrich Republican Newt 2012 PO Box 550769 Atlanta, GA 30355 Phone: (678) 973-2306 Website: www.newt.org

Fred Karger Republican Fred Karger for President 2745 Woodstock Rd Los Angeles, CA 90046 Phone: (202) 365-2321 Website: www.fredkarger.com

Ron Paul Republican Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee 8000 Forbes Pl, Ste 200 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: (703) 563-6620 Website: www.ronpaul2012.com

Charles E. “Buddy” Roemer, III Republican Buddy Roemer for President PO Box 84877 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Phone: (603) 782-4812 Website: www.buddyroemer.com

Mitt Romney Republican Mitt Romney for President PO Box 149756 Boston, MA 02114-9756 Phone: (857) 288-3500 Website: www.mittromney.com

Rick Santorum Republican Rick Santorum for President PO Box 37 Verona, PA 15147 Phone: (888) 321-6675 Website: www.ricksantorum.com

Page 1 of 3 Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012) Edward C. Noonan American Independent 1713 11th Ave Olivehurst, CA 95961

Mad Max Riekse American Independent PO Box 82 Fruitport, MI 49415

Laurie Roth American Independent 2903 Maple St Longview, WA 98632

Roseanne Barr Green Roseanne for President 2012 214 Main St #293 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (646) 423-8383 Website: www.roseanneforpresident.com

Kent Mesplay Green Mesplay for President 5173 Waring Rd #204 San Diego, CA 92120 Email: [email protected] Website: www.mesplay.org

Jill Stein Green Jill Stein for President PO Box 260217 Madison, WI 53726-0217 Email: [email protected] Website: www.jillstein.org

Roger Gary Libertarian 1119 W Ashby Pl San Antonio, TX 78201

R. J. Harris Libertarian 3334 W Main St Box 402 Norman, OK 73072

Gary Johnson Libertarian 280 S 400 W Ste 220 Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Page 2 of 3 Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012) Scott Keller Libertarian 8754 Handel Loop Land O Lakes, FL 34637

James Ogle Libertarian 715 9th St Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Carl Person Libertarian 325 W 45th St Ste 201 New York, NY 10036-3803

Bill Still Libertarian 44564 Blue Ridge Meadows Dr Ashburn, VA 20147

Barbara Joy Waymire Libertarian 2710 County Rd 202 Tulelake, CA 96134-9286

Lee Wrights Libertarian 109 Latigo Dr Burnet, TX 78611

Stewart Alexander Peace and Freedom 40485 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd #149 Murrieta, CA 92563 Phone: (909) 223-2067 Email: [email protected]

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson Peace and Freedom 314 W 300 S Ste 225 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 990-5300 Phone: (801) 557-9007 Email: [email protected]

Stephen Durham* Peace and Freedom 762 Riverside Dr., #3A New York, NY 10031 Phone: (206) 985-4621 Email: [email protected] Website: www.socialism.com

* Added February 28, 2012, to the list of Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates

Page 3 of 3

1 Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner of the Ad Hoc California registered voters 2 with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Telephone: 530-845-5186 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

6 ) Case No.: 34-2012-80001048 Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, ) 7 Sharon Chickering, George Miller, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott ) AUTHORITIES FOR THE EX PARTE 8 PAMELA BARNETT’S PEREMPTORY ) Petitioners, ) WRIT WITH ALTERNATIVE WRIT 9 FOR A EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY ) ) HEARING ON THE MERITS OF 10 v. ) EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE

11 Debra Bowen individually and officially ) IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO as The California Secretary of State ) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA 12 at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor ) FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO Sacramento, CA, 95814; ) PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT 13 Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA ) OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at ) FUND RAISING 14 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 ) Date: March 26, 2012 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John ) 15 Time: 9:00 a.m. and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. ) ) Dept: 31 16 Respondents. ) Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny Action Filed: January 6, 2012 17 ______) ) 18 )

19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 INTRODUCTION 21 That this is the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Ex Parte Petitioner 22 Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having affirmed an application on 23

24 March 14, 2012 with exhibits annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

25 support of a Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an

26 Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a 27 continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 1 of 22

1 Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012 by Respondents’ counsel Fredric D. Woocher

2 Esq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and there

3 being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation is in 4 support of an alternative writ for a expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits of the 5 evidence proffered to date before the ballot printing deadline of March 29, 2012 that 6 sufficient also to require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that 7

8 a continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule as to the California

9 Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s Demurrer with Memorandum filed February 16, 2012

10 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. Hakl, Esq. with return date of April 20, 2012, and 11 that the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the 12 Petition subsequent to this Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with 13 Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented 14 based upon the March 1, 2012 the release by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Office 15

16 of the COLD CASE POSSE of the preliminary report shown in exhibit; and further, that the

17 Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for

18 prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writ 19 is heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason requires an amended Petition filed 20 nunc pro tunc. 21 Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, 22

23 Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are

24 hereby stayed from printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to be

25 held on June 5, 2012 any of the names of the electors slates for the purported candidates 26 for the office of POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance of 27 Respondents or by his / her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted. 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 2 of 22

1 Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State,

2 Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, shall

3 appear or by his / her attorney show cause at this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 4 by March 26, 2012 , at 9:00 o’clock in the forenoon or as soon as counsel may be heard 5 why an order should not be made affecting the Electoral College requiring that each 6 declared candidate be a natural born citizen. 7

8 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution 9 Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3……………………………………………………………………………20 10 Article 2, Section 1 ……………………………………………………………………………….………6,20 11 13th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………..14,15,20 12 14th Amendment………………………………………………………………………………………….13-16, 13 California Constitution

14 Article 2, Section 5 …………………………………………………………….………………………….. 21 15 Article 20 the Oath of office………………………………………………………………………………21

16 California Statues

17 California Government Code §12172.5 ……………………………………….…….……..…….

18 California Elections Code § 6041 …………………………………………………………….………..

19 California Elections Code § 6901 …………………………………………………………….……….. California Elections Code § 13314 …………………………………………………………………..21 20 California Civil Code § 1104 ………………………………………………. 21 California Civil Code § 1109 ………………………………………………. 22

23 California Cases

24 Keyes v. Bowen case No. C062321. - CA Court of Appeals..…………….…..…………..5

25 Robinson v. Bowen, (189 Cal.App.4th at p.661………………………………………….……….…6 26 Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al, 27 No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012) citing:

28 In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592;

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 3 of 22

1 Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 Cal. 56. Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; 2 State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.)………………………21 3 4 Federal Cases

5 Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875)………………………………………………………..…18,

6 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)……………………………………………………….19, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)………………………………………………………….. 7 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)……………………………………………………………………… 8 The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)……………………………………………………………19 9 Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884)…………………………………………………………………………...19 10 Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393…………………………………………………………………………..20 11 Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73……………………………………………………….20

12 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306……………………………………………20 Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111……………………………..18 13

14 Federal Statutes: 15 3 U.S.C. section 15 16

17 Federal Forms:

18 U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application for renewal

19 Georgia State Cases: 20

21 OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS for the STATE OF GEORGIA Docket Numbers: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215136-60-MALIHI; 22 OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215137-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216218-60-MALIHI; 23 OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216823-60-MALIHI;

24 Administrative trial court decision citing: 25 Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 …………..14 26

27 Memorandum of Law by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. shown as Exhibit 12 …………………………….14 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 4 of 22

1 Re: the February 3, 2012 Judge Malihi Decision shown as Exhibit 13………………………….14

2 The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212………………………………………………………………………………..…19 3 th nd 4 Congressional Globe at p. 1862 of the 37 Congress 2 ses. p. 1639………………………..15

th st 5 The 39 Congress 1 session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866………………………………………………………………………….15 6 the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883…………………………………………………16-18 7

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 10 II. An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that 11

12 The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery………………………………………….6

13 III. An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports That all The Microfilm from August

14 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives………….…7 15 IV. That Respondent Obama’s 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery……….7 16 V. That Respondent Obama is suspect of not being born in the USA as a result that 17 Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence………………………………….….8 18

19 VI. That Respondent Obama made an Admission against Interest…………………………11

20 VII. That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands…………………………………………………….11

21 VIII. That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine……..12

22 IX. As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure 23 “Natural-Born Citizen” conflation by Public Officers and Respondents……………..13 24 X. The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict With 25 Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates ……………..21 26

27 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………..………………….……………………….………22 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 5 of 22

1 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that

2 The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery

3 That subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on March 1, 2012, the 4 Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release shown as Exhibit 2 and Press Conference 5 established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE , as 6 an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes 7

8 committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that

9 Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1

10 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as Exhibit 3 is the 11 subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the Arizona primary 12 now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE 13 shown as Exhibit 4 supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent 14 Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 15

16 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote:

17 “Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, 18 knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and 19 second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s 20 authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

21 During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, 22 investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history 23 including:.

24 • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; 25 • To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United 26 States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service 27 cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those 28 records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly,

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 6 of 22

1 records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration 2 cards cannot be found. “

3 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from 4 August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives 5 That in addition to the evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before the 6 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US 7

8 DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent

9 Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to

10 Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the suspicion why the 11 microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies 12 are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in 13 the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS 14 records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provides the Court herein with 15

16 substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a

17 continuing pattern to spoliate evidence and usurp the office of POTUS.

18 That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery 19 That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 20 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 5 is a forged 21 document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys 22

23 at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript

24 shown as Exhibit 6; and

25 The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2007 proffered 26 CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon the 27 admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 7 of 22

1 April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27,

2 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama

3 had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released whne if 4 fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the alleged request was made to 5 Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly 6 released in 2008 is stamped June 6, 2007 shown at Exhibit 7 as the FactCheck.org report 7

8 on August 21, 2008; and the later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the

9 so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media,

10 were partisan amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do 11 Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the 12 foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission 13 against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong 14 doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. 15

16 That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence

17 Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence according

18 to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines “spoliation” as, “the intentional 19 destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document” (1). 20 Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and negligent 21 installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently 22

23 installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff

24 from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to negligence, but in some

25 instances the loss is occasioned by intentional and willful conduct. 26 Elements of Spoliation 27 Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 8 of 22

1 variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and

2 against whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories: 1)

3 spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit for 4 which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party 5 whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and 2) whether 6 the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable “negligent” spoliation 7

8 claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via

9 discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and

10 egregious intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first gave rise to spoliation as 11 an affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of an 12 independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim: 13 1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff; 14 2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is 15

16 probable;

17 3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the

18 spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; 19 4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and 20 5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts. 21 That although the State of California does recognize a separate cause of action for 22

23 spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and

24 unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Respondent Obama from using the defenses

25 that were referenced in the respective demurrer as a matter of defense claimed. That the 26 California Court’s recognition of an intentional spoliation claim was eventually overruled by 27 the California Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 9 of 22

1 (Ca. 1998). Today, California – the birthplace of the independent spoliation cause of

2 action – does not recognize the tort as a stand alone claim.

3 However, as this case may be the Respondent OBAMA White House website has 4 removed the multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 2011 and has not 5 only “flattened the” pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally 6 to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. 7

8 By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP)

9 provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce

10 evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies ranging from monetary 11 compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to complete the coverage, 12 states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the spoliation concept 13 either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort. 14 In California, the independent tort of spoliation was eliminated in favor of applying the 15

16 remedy within the pending litigation as a discovery sanction. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v.

17 Superior Court (1998), 18 Cal. 4th 1, 12. In federal courts, the spoliation concept was

18 recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNA---Krause et al. Claimants, infra, is based on the 19 inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and often arises from a request for 20 a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington Arms (8th Cir 1988), 836 F.2d 21 1104 , 1111. Wigington v. CB Richard Ellis (10/24/03 N.D.Ill) [p.7 slip opinion. "A party 22

23 has a duty to preserve evidence over which it had control and 'reasonably knew or could

24 reasonably foresee was material to a potential legal action.' ..."A party must preserve

25 evidence that is properly discoverable under Rule 26. Discoverable evidence includes 26 electronic data such as e-mail."..."A party does not have to go to extraordinary measures 27 to preserve all potential evidence...It does not have to preserve every single scrap of 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 10 of 22

1 paper in its business...But a party must preserve evidence that it has notice is reasonably

2 likely to be the subject of a discovery request even before a request is actually

3 received.... Notice may be received before a complaint is filed if a party knows that 4 litigation is likely to begin, or a party may be alerted by the complaint...."] 5 That Respondent Obama made an Admissions against Interest 6 That Respondent Obama’s mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 8 as well 7

8 as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 9

9 affirms has never used another name on his law license application, and further that

10 Respondent Obama agents as shown in the transcript Exhibit 6 in regards to Exhibit 7 are 11 all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person 12 to testify to a statement of another that reveals something incriminating, embarrassing, 13 or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the 14 theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the 15

16 statement's reliability.

17 In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the

18 existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the 19 defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material 20 fact, but not amounting to a confession. 21 That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands 22

23 The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or

24 motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair

25 conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that 26 the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not 27 be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 11 of 22

1 plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant.

2 The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something

3 wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal 4 or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue. 5 For example, if a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant may 6 claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign the 7

8 contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is shown that

9 the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue at hand. In

10 another example, when a brokerage firm claimed that its confidential client information 11 was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not come to court 12 with “clean hands” since the court found that firm demonstrated a similar lack of regard 13 for the competitor's confidential client information when it snared the same broker six 14 years earlier. 15

16 The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues, specifically in

17 cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in awarding support

18 and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of the above reasons of 19 concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public documents, fraud, admission 20 against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting any relief requested by Respondent 21 Obama and his agents in the February 15, 2012 Demurrer. 22

23 That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine

24 Notwithstanding the above assorted list of bars to Respondent Obama claiming a

25 defense of laches paramount are the spoliation and concealment that have injured 26 Petitioner along with those similarly , who nevertheless filed a timely petition within the 27 statutory time as with any of the candidate involved also and thereby for the Respondent 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 12 of 22

1 Obama to invoke laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and

2 that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to

3 grant the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a 4 timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches as a form of estoppel for delay. 5 In most contexts, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party 6 invoking the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the 7

8 defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought.

9 For example, the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the

10 potential damages to be awarded, or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy 11 the claim may have been distributed in the meantime, or the property in question may 12 already have been sold, or evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend 13 against the claim. 14 Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative 15

16 defense, which means that the burden of asserting laches is on the party responding to

17 the claim to which it applies. “When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the

18 complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the 19 insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss.” Solow v. Nine 20 West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001); Simons v. United States, 21 452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on 22

23 laches where papers “reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay”)

24 As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure “Natural-Born

25 Citizen” conflation by Public Officers and Respondents 26 As the Petitioner’s affirmation shown with Exhibit 8 in the letter of the members of 27 Congress and various public officers including the various Courts having made serious 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 13 of 22

1 errors as evident in Exhibit 13 and by the analysis provided in Exhibit 12 by Mario Apuzzo,

2 Esq. of Ankeny and Georgia Malihi decision as well as the CA SOS instruction to use the

3 14th Amendment “Born a Citizen” idiom rather than the term of art “natural-born Citizen” 4 in direct contradiction the instructions shown on Exhibit 1 goes to not only gross 5 negligence in the collapse of our education system but to the malice involved with 6 partisan vires ultra bias favoring the Respondent Obama herein in breach of the inherent 7

8 duty created for all public officers in the sworn oath required with CA Const Article 20.

9 The history of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6,

10 1865, and the 14th amendment, which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was 11 proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868. So they 12 were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in 13 each bill. The 14th amendment represented the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling 14 that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy 15

16 any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

17 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born

18 in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the 19 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to 20 prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional 21 for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress 22

23 from altering it by a mere majority vote.

24 Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment

25 was never repealed, and that the left/progressives have totally perverted the 14th 26 Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. To truly understand the 14th Amendment 27

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 14 of 22

1 and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you, must go back to the

2 framers writings and the congressional debates.

3 The logical legislators to research in regard to debates is Senator Lyman Trumbull 4 who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th amendment’s 5 citizenship clause and co-author of the 13th amendment to abolish slavery was Illinois 6 Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853. 7 th 8 Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13 amendment. Served on

9 the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment to the United

10 States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th amendment’s Citizenship Clause. 11 The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, 12 Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of 13 Andrew Johnson; and in the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation 14 Representative John Bingham as reported in the Congressional Globe at page 1862 of the 15

th nd 16 37 Congress 2 session page 1639 stated:

17 “there is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election 18 or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance 19 with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. 20 Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians...” 21 Next according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and 22

23 reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866

24 “A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 25 Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any 26 State or Territory of the “ 27 Then A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit: 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 15 of 22

1 “In section 1, line 3, after the word “That,” insert, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are 2 hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,”

3 On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, it was 4 determined in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over the House of 5 Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull’s amendment. John 6 Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying: 7

8 ” I find no fault with the introduction clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of 9 the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;” 10 The bill was then sent to President Johnson, and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent 11

12 back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President’s veto; and

13 the next in Chronologically on to the 14th amendment as the congressional debates as

14 with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been perverted, 15 The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional 16 statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: 17 “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 18 immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person 19 of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 20 During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote: 21 “Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from 22 day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political 23 sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of 24 the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction. 25 Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech stated … 26

27 “Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal 28 definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 16 of 22

1 length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in 2 California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the Unites 3 States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great 4 Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another 5 man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary 6 acceptation of the word.

7 It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not 8 heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. ..” 9 And Senator Edgar Cowen goes further to state: 10 “I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, 11 and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the 12 power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would 13 have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are 14 to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think 15 not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a brad and general sense, 16 have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, 17 of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they 18 have an opportunity of poring in such an immigration as in a short time will double 19 or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it 20 may be well to consider it while we are on this point.

21 As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any 22 person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the Unites States… 23 I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the 24 Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, 25 perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that.”

26 That on the matter of anchor babies is regards to how the term jurisdiction would 27 be applied. And agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction in 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 17 of 22

1 the proposed law and that as such Mr. Howard said quote:

2 “ This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United 3 States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and or in the 4 United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will 5 include every other class of persons. National law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born overseas. ..” 6 In regards to jurisdiction Mr. Trumbull at 1866 in the Congressional Globe 2893 said 7

8 “The provisions is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the 9 Navaho Indian are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the Unites States.?” Not owing 10 allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means.”

11 In response Senator Howard responds quote: 12 “ I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word 13 “juris diction, “ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects 14 with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction 15 in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, 16 gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction 17 The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett stated “it was never doubted that all children 18

19 born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,

20 citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens.

21 In SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 – 22

23 M’Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must

24 be determined on the principles of the Law of Nations, which form a part of the municipal

25 law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, 26 there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated. 27 The Chief Justice goes on to say: 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 18 of 22

1 “Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is as satisfactory ‘3 “the answer 2 to the foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due 3 consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have 4 committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and 5 all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full 6 extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. Further search will verify that the 7 term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a dozen times on the page and the 8 author Vattel is sighted along with each.”

9 In the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice

10 Marshal stated “ Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more 11 satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands,” says: 12 “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain 13 duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or indigenizes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. 14 Society not being able to subsist and too perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed 15 to all their rights.” 16 The law of nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty 17 “Section 212. The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society 18 by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its 19 advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise 20 than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, 21 in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the 22 right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the 23 children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

24 In regards to Kim Wong Ark in Chester Arthur and Justice Gray in Elk v Wilkins 112

25 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 Decided November 3, 1884, and it seems that Justice 26 Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years 27 later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 19 of 22

1 “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “no person, except a 2 natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.” 3 4 And “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”

5 US Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3. By the Thirteenth

6 Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening

7 sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had 8 been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship 9 of free negroes (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all 10 persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the 11

12 United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the

13 United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83

14 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. 15 In the matter of the Oath to be taken to America for purposes of naturalized citizenship: 16 “I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all 17 allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and 18 defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all 19 enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the 20 law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under 21 civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God.” 22

23 Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now

24 why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens

25 parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you 26 must take the oath, simple as that! 27 Vattel’s authority as an institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 20 of 22

1 in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the

2 law of nations.

3 The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict with 4 Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates

5 Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is

6 filed on January 6, 2012 before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the

7 responsibility of the CA SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a 8 contradiction to public officer duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express 9 direction from the Legislature, records that Petitioners/Plaintiffs standing has properly 10 accrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As 11

12 Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012)[41]

13 “We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the law, including the Constitution. But as we will explain, our interpretation leads us to the narrow 14 conclusion that it is not the judiciary's role to judge the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does not 15 invalidate section 13314, however, because the application of that section is not 16 limited to challenging the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. Moreover, because our interpretation resolves this case, it is 17 unnecessary to reach any other constitutional questions, even if we might have jurisdiction to do so.” 18 AND 19 “Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts 20 of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 21 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have 22 jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. 23 AND 24 Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough 25 to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate 26 at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 27 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This Court agrees.” (emphasis added) 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 21 of 22

1 CONCLUSION

2 This Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner’s evidence that

th 3 Barack Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14 Amendment definition rather

4 than a “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the 5 same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even “Born a 6 Citizen” in the USA per se; and further, supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, 7 concealment of records, admissions against interest under POTUS control that 8 substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary 9 hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012.

10 The Court must order: 11 • Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm; 12 • Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred from the ballot proving 13 that he is actually a “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents; 14 • A Peremptory Writ for Stay of CA SOS ballot printing until further order; 15 • A denial of the Respondent Obama et al. February 15, 2012 Demurrer in its entirety;

16 • A continuance grant for CA SOS opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the

17 Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March 26, 2012 is decided; 18 • A continuance in scheduling on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogative writ of 19 mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the Alternative writ; 20 • A continuance in scheduling with sufficient reason that would require an amended 21 Petition filed nunc pro tunc.

22 • For further and different relief that the Court deems necessary for speedy justice

23 herein. Respectfully Submitted, 24

25 Date: March ___, 2012

26 ____ California ______Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner 27 of the Ad Hoc California registered voters with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 28 Telephone: 530-845-5186

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 22 of 22