Page 1 of 22

No. 08A524In TheSupreme Court of the United StatesGAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEYPetitioners;v.DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of CaliforniaRespondent.On Petition For A Write Of CertiorariBefore Judgment To TheSupreme Court of CaliforniaCase Nos.: (S168690)MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT,THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENTBARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFYUNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)Attorney of RecordDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ26302 La PazMission Viejo CA 92691949-683-5411

Page 2 of 22

January 15, 2009QUESTIONS PRESENTEDQuestion I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’sdeclaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on thePresident elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officersunder oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified,enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpretedexpansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpretedrestrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has onlyhad undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENTBARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II§1, & AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) whichempowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire caseor would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on amotion without waiting for a response.”To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to theattention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’sdeclaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on thePresident elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officersunder oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified,enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to thePetition.A. Respondent declared President electCongress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declaredRespondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bearU.S. CONST. Amendment 20.B. Burden of Proof on RespondentThe clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs

Page 3 of 22

Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed topresent to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to byreliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.D. Respondent has hindered discoveryRespondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining andexamining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofsattested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost,systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, includingthose presented before this Court by the Petitioner.E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitionersseeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed toqualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.F. Immediate Constitutional RemedyIn light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changedcircumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutionalremedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 &Amendment 20.This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs thathe qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that findingto Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect aPresident who does qualify.G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress theconstitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates.Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpretedexpansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpretedrestrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has onlyhad undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish thestringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for thecommon defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civilrights of “citizens”.Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as inviolable supreme law, andpreserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this criticalqualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enableelection officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, toproperly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or hasfailed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, whichthen would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does