1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case No.: PATRIOT’S HEART MEDIA NETWORK, ) INC., Members JOHN DOES and JANE ) DOES 1-20, Registered Voters and Members ) of PATRIOT’S HEART MEDIA NETWORK,) INC., (728 NW HWY, Fox River Grove, IL ) 60021 847-304-8800) CARL SWENSSON(165 ) ) Burke St. Suite 101, Stockbridge, Ga 30281, 678-438-6138), ROBERT DEBEAUX,( 4717 St, ) ) Thomas Place, Fortworth, Tx 76135 817-798-1338) ROBERT D. PINKSTAFF, (10208 E.Shadybrook,) Wichita, KS 67206 316-260-6397) and DR PENNY) KELSO,(PMB 106, 3411B 82nd St., Lubbock, TX ) ) 79423, 806-749-7387) ) PETITION – FOR THE Petitioners, ) CONVENING OF A FEDERAL ) GRAND JURY vs. ) ) BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a BARACK ) OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ) a/k/a BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, ) a/k/a BARRY OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, ) in her authority within the Democrat ) National Committee, HOWARD DEAN, in ) his authority within the Democrat National ) Committee, and JOHN DOES and JANE ) DOES, 1-20, members of media and press ) organizations, ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
We, the undersigned plaintiffs, appearing pro se and John and Jane Does from Patriot’s Heart Media Network, Inc, in accord with the directions of our convictions and

20
loyalty to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, on oath and before

21
God Almighty, set forth this petition in the United States District Court for the District of

22 23 24 25 26
Columbia, seeking a redress of our grievances in our prayer to seek the appointment and convening of a Federal Grand Jury to investigate high crimes against the United States of America as committed by the defendants whose names are set forth above based on the allegations set forth below.
Page 1 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1.5 1.1

1.0 PARTIES Plaintiffs are American citizens and registered voters whose First

Amendments rights to cast ballots in a national election without impermissible barriers have been deprived by the actions of the Defendants. 1.2 Defendants are all resident in or do business in the District of Columbia.

Many of the acts complained of herein occurred in the District of Columbia. Defendant BARRY SOETORO is believed to be an Indonesian citizen

who has operated under the assumed names BARRY OBAMA, BARACK OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II without benefit of a legally recognized name change. 1.4 Defendant NANCY PELOSI, in her authority within the Democrat

National Committee, is the duly authorized representative of the DNC who certified defendant BARACK OBAMA for nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Defendant HOWARD DEAN, in his authority within the Democrat

National Committee, is the duly authorized representative of the DNC who certified defendant BARACK OBAMA for nomination for the Presidency of the United States. 1.6 Defendants JOHN DOES and JANE DOES are members of the media and

press organizations who have published writings within the jurisdiction of this court, which have alleged that there is no controversy concerning the citizenship of defendant BARRY SOETORO, that his site of his birth has been conclusively established, and that

23 24 25 26
Page 2 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

there is no controversy concerning his eligibility to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.0 INTRODUCTION In 1967, a young man born Barack Hussein Obama II, was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro, when the family moved to Jakarta Indonesia. Pursuant to this adoption, he was legally renamed Barry Soetoro, his citizenship was declared as Indonesian so he could attend school, and his religion was declared to be Islam. See Exhibit 1. The divorce decree between Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro of 1980 further confirms that Barry Soetoro, age 19 at the time of the divorce, was the legal child of his

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 returned to Chicago to act as a community organizer with organizations such as ACORN. 23 24 25 26
Page 3 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. See Exhibit 2. Barry Soetoro moved to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandmother in 1971, when he was 10 years old. It is believed that this is when Barry Soetoro first reassumed some form of his birth name, Barack or Barry Obama. Nonetheless, in 1981, when he was twenty years old, he traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Kenya on a passport that was not an American passport, exercising his foreign citizenship after his 18th birthday. There is no record and no claim by any party that Barry Soetoro affirmed US Citizenship by means of an oath before a magistrate after his eighteenth birthday. Soetoro completed two years at Occidental College in California, before transferring to Columbia, where he allegedly completed his undergraduate degree. Soetoro is believed to have entered Columbia under the assumed name Barack Obama. Soetoro is alleged to have gone on to Harvard Law School, received a law degree and

Soetoro joined the Illinois Bar Association as Barack Obama, and claimed under oath that he had never been known by any other name. He later ran as a candidate for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

state senate under an umbrella party (the New Party) of the Socialist Workers’ Party in 1996. Soetoro was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1997 under the name Barack Obama, and held the post until 2004, when he was elected to the US Senate under the same name. Soetoro began running for the Presidency of the United States in 2007 under the assumed name Barack Obama, until he was inaugurated, when he assumed the name Barack Hussein Obama (still not his birth name) for purposes of holding the Presidency. At all material times in his political career, Soetoro has held himself out under

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Obama, who allegedly stated that she witnessed his birth in Coast Hospital in Mombasa, 23 24 25 26
Page 4 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

assumed names, none of which were his birth name or his legal name. Soetoro was born to British National father named Barack Hussein Obama on August 4, 1961, and an American mother named Stanley Ann Dunham. The site of his birth has not been established. In 1964, Kenya became a sovereign nation, and his father’s nationality became Kenyan. Soetoro has admitted that he believed he held Kenyan citizenship until 1982, although his Indonesian citizenship likely destroyed his Kenyan/British citizenship. There is no evidence that Soetoro reaffirmed his British citizenship by oath following his 18th birthday, and there is no evidence that Soetoro reaffirmed his Kenyan citizenship following his 18th birthday, although he did exercise some foreign citizenship when he travelled to Pakistan in 1981. The nationality of his passport is unknown at this time. The only eye-witness to the birth of Soetoro is his paternal grandmother, Sara

Kenya. See Exhibit 3. To date, there are no witnesses to Soetoro’s birth in Honolulu, Hawaii – no OB-GYN, no mid-wife, no nurse, no hospital, no neighbor, no acquaintance,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

no one. There are no witnesses to Ann Obama being in Hawaii from the period of February 1961 to January 1963. If Soetoro was born in Kenya as alleged, Soetoro’s mother was incapable of passing citizenship to Soetoro because of her age and because of the immigration laws in place at that time. Soetoro would be unable to obtain citizenship by means of a simple oath following his Indonesian citizenship; instead, Soetoro would be required to apply for entry and citizenship like millions of others around the world seeking entry into the US.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 rather than report the facts underlying the controversy. 23 24 25 26
Page 5 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Notwithstanding his British, Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships, his father’s citizenship alone is sufficient to disqualify Soetoro from the Presidency under Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of being forthcoming, Soetoro has obfuscated, hidden, and spent over $1 million to keep his birth and schooling records a secret. Pelosi and Reed certified to the state of Arizona that Soetoro was eligible to hold the office of POTUS, and certified to the remaining fifty states that Soetoro was duly nominated to be the Democrat candidate to the office of the Presidency. John Does and Jane Does 1-2 are members of the media and press organizations who were informed of the controversy surrounding the birth site of Soetoro and the controversy surrounding his eligibility for the office of the Presidency because of his failure to meet natural born citizen status, and elected to cover-up and defend Soetoro

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Plaintiffs are asking this court to convene a criminal grand jury to review and examine the facts alleged herein and make a determination as to whether probable cause exists to issue indictments against some or all of the defendants. 3.0 STANDING The denial of standing by the courts in this country on claims against usurpers of federal office is in itself an impermissible barrier to free speech which violates the First Amendment right to free association and the right to bring a petition for a redress of

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is 23 24 25 26
Page 6 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

grievances. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). When Congress and the media have become so corrupted that they seek to apologize for a candidate who has usurped an office, the people have no recourse other than the courts to bring their redress of grievances. Plaintiffs have exhausted all remedies prior to bringing this action. This court is that last bastion of redress available to them. 4.0 APPOINTMENT OF GRAND JURY AS A REMEDY The exercise of the Fifth Amendment to appoint grand juries has long been recognized by the federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States in cases as recent as United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), when the court said the following: '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche,

mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' " “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id. "In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 history. In England, the grand jury served for centuries both as a body of accusers 23 24 25 26
Page 7 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 2832 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992). Also see United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]. "The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American

sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in operative part 23 24 25 26
Page 8 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)." 4.1 Authority of the Citizens’ Grand Jury to Bring Presentment HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER "In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past." CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, the difference between and indictment issued by a grand jury and a presentment was explained as follows: "An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action: 'A presentment, properly

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 source, including the government itself." Creighton Law Review, op. cit. 23 24 25 26
Page 9 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' " "A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has improperly been eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very

The Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

oversight. This power has been eroded by the overreach of the legislative branch. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, some legislatures have required that a prosecutor or other officer of the court sign it or it may not be allowed to stand in court, rendering the criminal charges such independent grand juries have brought to the court's attention to be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative distortion of the actual

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 constitutional language. Creighton Law Review, op. cit. 23 24 25 26
Page 10 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

underlying facts. In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice. In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment." There is no mention of "presentments" in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules: 4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has 23 24 25 26
Page 11 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

concerns the Federal courts. The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4: [W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]: 'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or

become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The statement "Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation" is a usurpation of Constitutional power expressly granted to the citizens of this nation under both the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide citizens with oversight over tyrannical government. These due process rights are the preferred mechanism of the constitutional republic for the combating of tyranny, and there is no time more pressing than our current estate for the

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were 23 24 25 26
Page 12 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

exercise of these rights. The state, seeking to further alienate the exercise of powers expressly given to citizens in this country, then went out to brand such an exercise as a "runaway grand jury." A runaway grand jury is nothing more and nothing less than a constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances." As a result of this statist tactic to improperly disempower the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury has relegated to the position of submissive puppet to the US Attorney. The American Juror publication American Juror went on to say in a very relevant commentary: Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts

abolished. A particularly egregious example:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 presentments illegal or unconstitutional – they merely attempted to render them obsolete. 23 24 25 26
Page 13 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.' As a result, the investigation of seditious, corrupt, or illegal acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or a judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their business unimpeded. To further authorize this unconstitutional impediment to the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights of a grand jury to issue a presentment, FRCP authors in 1946 added the following Rule 6(g): "At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion. The authors of the new Federal Rules did not, however, render common law use

Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP provides as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts." The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." What was once obsolete in the minds of the modernists in 1946 is now both appropriate and relevant. The Constitution provides for "presentments." The Federal Rules of Civil

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Jurisdiction is proper under Article III, Section 2, which provides in operative part 23 24 25 26
Page 14 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Procedure as they were enacted do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure cannot overrule the Constitution. Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated." Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note. Further, plaintiffs have no alternative except for a grand jury. The Department of Justice, the organization empowered under the executive branch to investigate and bring actions to determine whether crimes have been committed under federal law, is currently headed by a man appointed to the position by the alleged usurper of the office of the Presidency. It is therefore futile to ask Attorney General Holder to prosecute his mentor. 5.0 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” as further iterated pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. This complaint arises under rights exercised pursuant to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Personal jurisdiction over the defendants is properly found in this court, since the defendants are resident in the District of Columbia, or have perpetrated acts within the jurisdiction of this court in the District of Columbia D.C. Venue is therefore proper in

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 15 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 6.0 STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE FACTS The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii On October 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released the following statement: There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, they are labeled BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4. BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). Below is a true and accurate facsimile of a “long form” birth certificate used by the State of Hawaii in 1961, carefully denoted as a “Certificate of Live Birth.” This language is extremely important, when compared with the fraudulent document released by Soetoro, the Daily Kos and fightthesmears.org.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Actual long form Certificate of Live Birth similar to one Obama refuses to release

24 BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or 25 26 midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate
Page 16 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the 23 24 25 26
Page 17 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

8&9) The Hawaiian Department of Health currently (as of 2008) requires only proof of residency to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii, such as a driver’s license. Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17. The state of Hawaii would also accept a telephone bill, a pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and a post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician, although pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the 1960s. There is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii. BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the

certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).” This form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or one of Soetoro’s grandparents. Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 /// 23 24 25 26
Page 18 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §33841 [in 1961]). ///

/// ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible 23 24 25 26
Page 19 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate.” Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual

that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” Soetoro has admitted that he was a Kenyan citizen until 1982, and it is possible that he believes that he achieved citizenship when he secured a BC5 in 1982 under the

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release 23 24 25 26
Page 20 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

assumed name Barack Hussein Obama II. It is noteworthy that this Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) has the conspicuous statement at the bottom: ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE, and that the Certification has been altered, as the number has been blacked out. This document, together with a newspaper clipping from 1961, were the only two pieces of evidence provided by Soetoro to buttress his claims of an American birth, prior to the release of another and yet another Certification of Live Birth that surfaced on the internet following Polarik’s forensic audit which declared this particular certification to be a forgery. Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act may explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original

the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fraudulently. The documents indicate that it’s one or the other.” 23 24 25 26
Page 21 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3. It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. See Exhibit 5. Here are 2 of Polarik’s websites: http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/ http://bogusbithcertificate.blogspot.com/ However, the likelihood that this computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was forged, is, I believe, increased by the fact that it has been pretty clearly established that Obama “either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html The forgery of Obama’s selective service registration was necessary, because according to Federal law, “A man

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.” http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm) Dr Fukino’s statement in no way attested to (or even addressed the issue of) the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” (and the information that appears on it) that the Daily Kos blog and the Obama campaign posted on line. Dr Fukino merely stated that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in 23 24 25 26
Page 22 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If there is no hospital or physician record in the vault birth certificate, then he wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then be ruled out for the following reason. When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not

Hawaii. And if there is no hospital record in the original vault birth certificate, then he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Most people think of a birth certificate as a statement by a hospital or midwife 23 24 25 26
Page 23 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President? If you combine an awareness of what the Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet really is with 1) a knowledge of the relevant statutes in 1961 and 2) Obama’s stubborn refusal to permit the release of the real birth certificate and his determination to fight any legal actions that would compel him to do so, it becomes clear that there is no logical explanation for Obama’s refusal without taking into consideration the relevant statutes. Then his behavior becomes clear. The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii is the missing piece of the puzzle.

with a footprint, etc. (That may be why some main-stream journalists have straight out lied about this. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, for example, told

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass 23 24 25 26
Page 24 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well. FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-

and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.) Most people would not consider a mailed-in form by one of his parents (who

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American 23 24 25 26
Page 25 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or a sworn statement by one of his grandparents or by his mother or even a sworn statement by himself many years later to be sufficient evidence (when set next to the statements by his paternal grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador that he was born in another country). Unless the American people are shown the original birth certificate, all of these are possibilities. And if Obama refuses to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a Hawaii hospital or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife. A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it. In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child

citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama. “ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301 (CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007) “a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on 23 24 25 26
Page 26 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. “As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”. But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ineligible under Article II, Section1 for the Office of President of the United States. 23 24 25 26
Page 27 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

would be to take advantage of one of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act. People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is

It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “naturalborn” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such 23 24 25 26
Page 28 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England. William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 1765 “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . . “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that

allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the rule of law in the United States is a fiction. 23 24 25 26
Page 29 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were naturalborn subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's] The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that

Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any courts-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing 23 24 25 26
Page 30 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his vault birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil. It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July. “The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of

intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation. “Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 “The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the 23 24 25 26
Page 31 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’ “At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign. “ ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public. “The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.

associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.” “The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.” http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.htm

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 32 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

l The following may be relevant: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-casefatally-shot/ Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot Saturday, April 19, 2008 A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday. Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division. Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car. Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene. City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators. We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said. Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris. A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks. One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State. There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp. This certainly at least should be looked into. Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 33 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state government has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy. Given the slipperiness that characterized the statements of Chiyome Fukino, the Dept’s Director, and Janice Okubo, the Dept’s spokesperson, to the media on this issue, it is, I think, also reasonable to regard these steps with suspicion. A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii 6 months ago. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same abbreviated computergenerated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form. A Certification of Live Birth is an abbreviated document that provides none of the probative information that was or wasn’t on Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Unlike the Certificate of Live Birth of the time when Barack Obama was born, the new Certificate of Live Birth provides no real evidence of where a child was born or indication of where such evidence might be found. It provides no information

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html 23 24 25 26
Page 34 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

that would demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. (As is permitted under Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii.) On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past”, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin]

This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth: “In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Live Birth.” 23 24 25 26
Page 35 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. “Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.” http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl Ms. Okubo’s statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or release “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, and that it was the DOH’s policy rather than his own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this Certificate. This was an obvious deception. The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of

Only the information on the original birth certificate, “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, can demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange 23 24 25 26
Page 36 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates and the recently renamed abbreviated computer printouts] and Certifications of Live Birth [as the abbreviated computer printouts were up till recently called] because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth… Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are

preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.” http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept. of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009.

Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the State of Hawaii changed its rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove Hawaiian ancestry, thereby

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

upgrading the apparent status of the abbreviated Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why? On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 live birth? 23 24 25 26
Page 37 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered. We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that up until very recently, the original paper Certificates of Live Birth were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state government has destroyed the original paper certificate of

7.0 PRESENTMENT OF FINDINGS ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Plaintiffs believe that probable cause exists to warrant the indictment of the above-named defendants on the following charge: TREASON – Against the United States of America Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution provides as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort, No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act 1 , or on Confession in open Court. See Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), (affirming that treason is limited

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

to the waging of war 2 or the giving of material assistance to an enemy). Plaintiffs charge the following: Soetoro has never established that defendant is eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1 to obtain to the office of the President. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 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 shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Overt acts are such acts as manifest a criminal intention and tend towards the accomplishment of the criminal object. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 7 (1945).
2

1

War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganizing a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.

Page 38 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Soetoro has admitted that he is the son of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, and that he was born on August 4, 1961. This record is further corroborated with the Decree of Divorce between S. A. Dunham and B. H. Obama entered on March 4, 1964. Defendant has admitted that at the time of his birth, his father was a British citizen and a Kenyan national. It is a matter of public record that Stanley Ann Dunham, at the time of defendant’s birth, was 18 years of age.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 defendant is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, as required 23 24 25 26
Page 39 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Defendant, through third parties acting on his behalf, has tendered a discredited and apparently forged Certification of Live Birth claiming to be from the state of Hawaii. See Exhibit 5. Defendant’s grandmother has stated emphatically that she was present at the time of his birth at the Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, and his half-brothers have attested to his Kenyan birth. See Affidavit of Kweli Shuhubia attached hereto as Exhibit 4. No person or entity has appeared as a witness to his alleged birth in Hawaii, and there is no evidence other than the forged Certification of Live Birth indicating that defendant was born on American soil. Defendant has refused to release his actual Certificate of Live Birth, and has proffered no other evidence to establish a birth on American soil. Therefore, Plaintiff has determined that probable cause exists to conclude that

under Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, of the United States Constitution, and further

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

that defendant has failed to establish that he is in fact a citizen of the United States of America. 2) Obama was a British citizen 'at birth.' These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II 'natural born Citizen.' The operative 23 24 25 26
Page 40 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father. As applicable only to a Presidential Article II 'natural born Citizen': ...the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth. It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence,

facts are not in dispute." ///

1 2 3

Defendants’ Concealment of Soetoro’s Birth Record is a High Crime Against the United States of America Because Soetoro has broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling and deceit, and has seized the seat of the

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 to Hitler’s Aktion T-4 euthanasia program declared by the Nuremburg tribunals to be 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 41 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Presidency and has stripped civilian command and control over the military of the United States of America with the intent of destroying and overthrowing the Constitution of the United States of America. Since seizing power illegally and by artifices of fraud, Soetoro has obligated the United States of America to the single largest debt ever incurred by a nation state in history, has nationalized industries by means of unconstitutional and ultra vires contractual arrangements, and has proposed a eugenics program similar in content

crimes against humanity, which intend to deprive the sick and elderly of health care and which will advise those on Medicare how to die. Defendants, acting in concert, have worked to defraud Plaintiffs and to otherwise hinder plaintiffs protected speech and their expression of speech in their vote for the Presidency, using the interstate mail system and other forms of interstate communication, and by making false statements concerning the birth site of Soetoro, his legal name, and his background, all acts for which there is probable cause to believe that the following federal criminal statutes have been violated: • • • • 13 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against civil rights 19 U.S.C. § 391 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States 29 U.S.C. § 594 – Intimidation of voters 43 U.S.C. § 911 – False Personation; Citizen of the United States

1 2 3 4 5 6

• • •

43 U.S.C. § 912 – False Personation; Officer or employee of the United States 47 U.S.C. §1001 3 - Fraud and False Statements-Statements or entries generally 47 U.S.C. § 1002. Fraud and False Statements - Possession of false papers to defraud United States

47 U.S.C. § 1015 – Fraud and False Statements. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
3

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or (d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or (e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or (f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

47 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. Page 42 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Subsection (f) does not apply to an alien if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of the United States. • 47 U.S.C. § 1017 – Fraud and False Statements - Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed • 47 U.S.C. § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; (3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or

17 more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 43 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used; (6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority; (7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or (8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification;

15 shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. 16 (b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is— 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 44 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

(1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is— (A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be— (i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or (ii) a birth certificate, [bold and italics added] or a driver’s license or personal identification card;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features, or false identification documents; (C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or (D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer, possession, or use of 1 or more means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committing the offense obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period; (2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is— (A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identification document,,[1] authentication feature, or a false identification document; or (B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection; (3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the

15 offense is committed— 16 (A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a)(2)); 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 45 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924 (c)(3)); or (C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final; (4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both, if the offense is committed to facilitate an act of domestic terrorism (as defined under section 2331 (5) of this title) or an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 (1) of this title); (5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense; and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case. (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that— (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either— (A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means [bold and italics added]; or (B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification

15 document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of 16 the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 46 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

(d) In this section and section 1028A— (1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement; (3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals; (4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that— (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

15 (B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a 16 State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 47 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization; (5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that— (A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit; (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or (C) appears to be genuine, but is not; (6) the term “issuing authority”— (A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and (B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization; (7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

15 (A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued 16 driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 48 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e)); (8) the term “personal identification card” means an identification document issued by a State or local government solely for the purpose of identification;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble; (10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others; (11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and (12) the term “traffic” means— (A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or (B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of. (e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or

15 intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a 16 political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 49 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title. (f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. [Bold and italics added]. (g) Forfeiture Procedures.— The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than subsection

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853). (h) Forfeiture; Disposition.— In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification. (i) Rule of Construction.— For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or false identification document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means of identification. • 69 U.S.C. § 1425 - Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully

(a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship; or

15 (b) Whoever, whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly 16 issues, procures or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 50 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing— [bold and italics added] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. • • 115 U.S.C. § 2381 – Treason 115 U.S.C. § 2382 – Misprision of Treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs prays for relief as follows: A. That this court appoint and convene a federal grand jury to investigate the

high crimes set forth herein by the defendants. 15 B. 16 proper. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 51 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

That the court award such other relief in law and equity as the court deems

1 2 3 4 5 6

VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS
The Statements and Claims made herein are the statements and claims of the plaintiffs and those statements incorporated herein of others as part of the public record concerning these matter. On oath and subject to the laws of perjury, we the undersigned plaintiffs affirm and assert that the preceding allegations and factual statements, including those factual statements alleged on information and belief are true to the best of our knowledge, and that we have asserted these claims, being legally competent to testify to these matters, and having acted voluntarily without promise of payment or by threat; in good faith and based upon our understanding of the United States Constitution and the duly enacted laws which spring there under. On our sacred honor and in witness before God.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
________________________________ PATRIOT’S HEART MEDIA NETWORK BY IT’S DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, Signed from this location (Address)______________________________ Phone _______________ on this ___ day of August, 2009.
Page 52 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

__________________________________ CARL SWENSSON Signed from this location (Address)______________________________ (Phone) _______________ on this ___ day of August, 2009.

__________________________________ ROBERT DEBEAUX Signed from this location (Address)______________________________ (Phone) _______________ on this ___ day of August, 2009.

__________________________________ (ROBERT (Bob) D. PINKSTAFF (Ret Gunnery Sergeant (E7) Signed from this location (Address)______________________________ (Phone) _______________ on this ___ day of August, 2009.

________________________________ DR PENNY KELSO Signed from this location (Address)______________________________ Phone _______________ on this ___ day of August, 2009.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 1

Page 53 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 2

Page 54 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 3
Declaro Di1 “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” -Psalm 11:3 The very foundation of this country was laid upon this precept, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness”. 2 Howbeit, with that foundational declaration came two other “self evident” truths, the first of which was our fore fathers’ declaration of the very existence and dependence upon our Creator who endowed such rights as we suppose them to be upon us; and also this exhortation of cautious patience, that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”. Yet in these dark days where Governmental ends have in Tyrants’ minds, justified their means, to an irreversible hour that the inexplicable corruptions and abuse of Governmental powers “derived from the consent of the governed” have created even in the minds of a peaceful, obedient people these very same revolutionary thoughts that fearfully started this great country, and yet now contemplate the abolishment of that very state which for over two centuries has been the noblest means for securing a peoples’ undeserved endowment from their Creator. This author dares say “undeserved” in that, if such “unalienable rights” be endowed from our Creator, then such endowment lands upon we Creatures3 here below, the mere acknowledgment of such doth bind us to serve Him for the indebtedness of such endowment; and by such noble servitude we soundly proclaim that in this one universal state of being “all men equal”, we are not before God a Free People in deed of this single most indebtedness to God. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves Servants to obey, his servants ye are To whom ye obey?” -Romans 6:16
Page 55 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Our freedoms and liberties are pluralistic only in those things that are beyond that endowment that binds us to God our Creator in acknowledgement of “the Truth” that stands so self evident to all. In word and thereby in deed we are a Free People in things related to man, but not free from God who created “all men equal” in things relating to man. “If God therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” -John 8:36 “Mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.” -Luke 24:19 Vox Vero4: The deed by which we are endowed by our Creator is signed by our fore fathers in word of that very Declaration of our Independence from the Tyranny of Man, by which we declare our freedom and liberty from the bondage of Tyrants and Despots that would usurp God’s authority as the Author and Mover of our Happiness and the Endower of our rights; by wresting that form of government so “derived from the consent of the governed”, and replace it with the tyranny of an antichrist rule5, where mere men exalt their seats of government so “derived from the consent of the governed” into the throne of God as the absolute Despot to decide what rights we have and to whom they apply and do not apply. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he AS GOD sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” -2 Thessalonians 2:4 Howbeit, it is God alone and not man that endowed these unalienable rights to we His subjects. And Governments are created when in the wisdom of God and man, a Free People consent to give certain powers to men like ourselves, chosen from among us as being like us, to “organiz[e] its powers in such form” as to secure to themselves and their fellows that chose them, these unalienable rights of the people they serve in such capacity as we call Government of the People, for the People and by the People. Without
Page 56 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Government, men rule as gods, dictators and monarchs. By the Declaration of Independence we threw off the latter, and by love of liberty we repudiate the second! But shall we as men serve men as gods? “I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men.” -Psalm 82:6, 7 God Almighty lives; and governments will live on, but only so long as men are free to serve God and not man. Free to enjoy as equals those unalienable rights endowed upon them from God alone and not man. Free to consent to be governed by their fellows who never forget they are fellow men and not gods; and the consent of their fellows to allow them to govern rests only in their duty before God of being true men, qualified and Constitutionally elected for the securing of the rights of their fellows and the protection of the same. Howbeit, none of these shall prevail or long endure unless there remains an absolute final authority that constitutes the laws by which men consent to be governed by themselves, and an absolute final authority by which both man and his governments are subject unto God. America’s Constitution stands as the former. The word of God stands alone as the latter. The throwing off of the latter gave birth to secularist humanism with a devilish craving to eat up the former on its way to becoming a god and not man. The destruction of the former is the end of the Republic, the fall of equal rights, and the damnation of America as she has always been known before God. The hour has come when the unalienable rights of a Free People are threatened with a tyrannical destruction from Government that wrests such powers derived by the consent of the governed, into a satanical belief that they can use such powers to force the governed into likewise consenting to the surrender of those unalienable rights. In these last days of a most vicious war loving administration, that same Government has grown into such a Tyrant that it would kill its own people in mass to establish a warlord political agenda for destroying all that remains of our Constitution by which we consent to be governed, and under which we have these unalienable rights as a Free People. It has long been established before the Highest Court of this Government, that our unalienable rights cannot be taken from us, or transferred to another. They can only be surrendered, and once surrendered there is no discovered way to get them back. Our rights so constituted are not pluralistic in the various concepts for which they stand. They are not a deck of cards to played over and again. They are singular in each regard, whether it be freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, freedom to bear arms, or freedom to worship. There exist no “freedoms to speak”, that allow the speaker to play his hand over and over as he wishes for convenience sake, so long as he does not use up the last of his deck of cards. Non Secus, Haud Secus! Not so! Even as the courts have long held that the accused right to
Page 57 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

self incrimination is singular and not plural, so that once given up for one statement, it cannot be gathered back to protect against further statements. That surrendered right is gone forever. So too belongs this doctrine of factual reality to all our rights as a Free People. “We the people” have suffered long since America’s first civil unrest to throw off tyranny, in repeated suppressions and violations of our Constitutional rights. Howbeit, as our fathers ably stated, “we are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”; and so we have since the last Great War suffered repeated violations of individual rights, as long as we could appeal to the Highest Court for redress, in order to right those grievances so tyrannically loaded upon us by mere men under color of law. And thus would a peaceful people continue therein, as long as the Courts granted standing to the people to redress these wrongs under the authority of our Constitution’s clear language. But alas, now Tyrants think to deny even our standing to suit for redress and relief from unconstitutional oppressions and violations. And to add to these unbearable torments, in these last days, Government now forces upon us an unbearable injustice, and trampling of the Constitution of the United States, in thinking to force the people to accept a foreigner as the President of this Republic, ignoring the single most important qualification for the highest office in our land, that such a one, not just gain such “power by the consent of the governed”, but that he be naturally born amongst us as one of us. There has never been an alternative option to replace “a natural born citizen” as the President of these United States. The Constitution knows no such option. Howbeit, the Federal Courts have repeatedly refused the people’s right to challenge such unprecedented trampling and violation of what the Constitution clearly says, and to date refuses to require such an Imposter to prove his “natural born” citizenship. Those who challenge such facts are libeled as racists, when nothing further could be true. With repeated Constitutional challenges to this Dreamer’s fraud upon the Constitutional requirements that he be “naturally born” among us, lying dormant before the Highest Court, where Justice Souter has no ears to hear it Constitutionally, nor courage to act to enforce such, What are Peaceable Men to Do? What is it that God requires of Peaceable Men and lovers of liberty to do? For fifty years the Tyrants in Washington have taken God from the minds of the people foremost, so that the Law is King, and tyranny will decide what is law! Now men cower under an overwhelming despotism that rattles its sword and murders its own people, to suppress the voice of God and the people, so that silence is the sound of good men dying as Tyrants march them over the precipice of an antichrist rule of death over the Republic for which we all once stood! Men are want to know what saith the Lord God and Creator of all men equal! Juris Prudence has held in every state of our Union, and before the Highest Court of our Republic this principle of a Constitutional Government of Laws and not men, “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights,
Page 58 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CREATES NO OFFICE, BESTOWS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY ON ANYONE, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”6 With the Unconstitutional ascension to the highest office of our Land, a man that by means of his very birth, is by the Constitution unqualified to hold the Office of President, we are now faced with an unprecedented constitutional challenge to the free people of this Republic, to either surrender that blessed document that our fathers laid as the very “foundation” of law from which we define and derive all unalienable rights from God Almighty, or map for ourselves as our fathers mapped for us, another course of history, guided by prudence, supported by the Constitution, and blessed and directed of God. To fail in any of these three, will ultimately and tragically destroy the very foundation we seek to preserve, and abolish all that history has known as the United States of America. Because our system of fairness and hope to all peoples that they may be, like we, free and independent from the tyranny of men and devils, we establish means to migrate others to this land of liberty and promise, that they like our fathers may live to give unto their children that rightful inheritance of being “natural born citizens” and not mere immigrants naturalized to a citizenship not theirs from birth. “And the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 59 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was Free Born.” -Acts 22:27, 28 But never should this Free People, naturally born to such a precious inheritance of freedom by birth as natural born citizens ever allow such an endowment, purchased with the blood of countless fathers and sons throughout our rich heritage, to so cheaply pass to foreigners born abroad, or citizens of other countries. None should so presume to falsify and deceive and repudiate the very foundational right of we natural born citizens, to be governed by none but those like unto us. God deliver us. But what are men to do? When all that lands upon their ears is from Tyrants’ mouths, and liberal puppets tied by strings to an agenda so vile before God and man, that to voice any difference is to be set upon with such vile hatred as to make strong men shutter and weak men lament like widows for the husbands of their youth7. “The vile person shall be no more called Liberal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

…for the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.” -Isaiah 32:5-8 Yet in the beginning of this Republic, voices were heard before shots were fired to reenforce the thoughts of those voices so daring as to utter righteousness before man in God’s stead. And the words so written from our forefathers were convincing even unto this day, that the Founding Fathers knew the mind of God, and thus were not intimidated by threats of imprisonment or death. Yet in these last days, where Tyrants’ minds have “devised liberal things”, and uttered so much error before the Creator of all men, that the liberal, vile cacophony resounds throughout the land to drown out doubtful voices, whose only authority rests in the Document now being trampled underfoot of Tyrants with the innocent blood of their citizens dripping from their hands. Voices so accustomed to being stifled by the drumming of the majority’s whims and fancies to be free from God and laws of righteousness unalienable to all men, those weakened utterances have little or no effect, for lack of any authority that runs deep to the conscience of man’s soul! The halls of Congress are silent in sounds and words of the Creator of all men, where endless laws are passed to rid even the memory of the God of America’s fore fathers. Pulpits are filled with errant diatribes about a god no one knows, and none have heard in fifty years or more! Much is said and scribbled across reams of paper of all these injustices, and that which is heard is of little effect having no authority to stand to in support thereof. “And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” -Mark 1:22 O, what are men to do in this hour? Without God, they can do nothing8, and so it cometh to pass that they do nothing! And what they do by voice without God is ignored for lack of authority or impact, and lack of conscience to stand at all costs behind their given voice. Men will not stand for a piece of paper unless God is in it. Their conscience
Page 60 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

forbids it, and without such strength of conscience, their voice gives way to fear for lack of authority behind what they say they believe. But the time has come when this lack of conscience and authority and courage to stand at all costs goes no further; but rather gives place to the foundational truths that established this great nation, even at the costs of our lives and fortunes. As our fathers Declared their Independence from the tyranny of monarchial men, it now behooves all free men of courage and conscience to declare of God Almighty what course they now take when the consent of the governed has now diabolically transformed such writ into the enslavement of the governed to foreign influence, foreign political agendas and now a foreign head of state. “ Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace… What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -Patrick Henry 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 61 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The hour has come and passed already, wherein this preacher weighs opinions any further in this matter. It matters not what others say or wish to do, or what they would have for another day of peace, “when there is no peace”9. Having walked these many years with God as a child of the King, whose supremacy is above all others, this old man knows the Declaration of God for this hour, and cannot go back, come what may. DECLARO DI! “We ought to obey God rather than men!” -Acts 5:29 Let weaker men and women enslave themselves at will in surrendering what cannot be taken from them, to gain what they cannot keep or long enjoy, while liberals and devils laugh them to scorn. But as for this old man, my conscience forbids that I go that way to save another day at large without God or conscience! It has long been established in the Declaration of God that “if thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they” (Ecclesiastes 5:8). So

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

too cometh this Declaration of God, that “if the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences” (10:5). Let Justice Souter and his fellows ignore their consciences along with the Constitution, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord with a clear conscience; and will never surrender the liberty of our conscience to the lies and frauds of a foreigner who seeketh to govern not by consent of the governed in accordance to the Constitution or the Word of God, but by lies and deceit without conscience towards God or the people of this United States. Forbid it Almighty God! It matters not what course the majority may take, this child of God will not serve, obey or recognize an unlawful governor or head of state that is not natural born to these United States. Take my liberty, my house and lands and by force of strength my life, but you will not get the liberty of my conscience before God Almighty to refuse an unlawful command or office before God and the Constitution of these United States. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17), and that is all that the Constitution of these United States and the Declaration of Independence is about. That is all that the history of America is about. That is the Declaration of God and the gift of God, and such liberty of conscience before God is so right, that neither men nor devils will ever take it by force from a Free People in service of the God that created them so. Only by deceit can such an unalienable right of liberty be surrendered to the tyranny of men. It is the darkest of hours for this country, but one of the greatest to be one of the brave and one of the free! It matters not what a corrupt and murderous government may say of itself, or threaten to others. Now is the time to stand to one’s conscience before God and his family. There is no scripture from God compelling men and women to obey lies, frauds and the murderous declarations of unrighteous governments bent for hell to over throw the consciences and wills of a Free People. Whether civilian or military, the laws of this land forbid it. I can do no less! Before God Almighty, with whom we have to do, we cannot render tribute nor honor unto those to whom no tribute nor honor is due (Romans 13:7). The hour is come that to ignore what is true and clearly factual, because others wish for comforts to do the same, is the destruction of conscience and standing before God Almighty. We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Terrorists, howsoever radical in their religious extremism killed no one on that fateful day, and God Almighty is witness against the souls of the President and Vice President of this country, for their hands are dripping red with blood, that no vain religious lies will ever cleanse. The souls of every policeman and fireman and citizen of this country that died needlessly that day, cry out against the executive Tyrants of the Bush Administration that killed them! And the Declaration of God stands firm that “Be sure your sin will find you out!”10 Take my lands, my liberty and my life for my refusal to neither serve nor obey this god-man Obama. But you will never have for your lies the surrender of my conscience

Page 62 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3

before God, my family and this Republic. God Almighty helping this old man for Christ sake! By the grace of God alone, Ron McRae

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 63 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Presiding Bishop Anabaptists Churches of North America P.O. Box 5607

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 4

Page 64 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 65 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 66 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 67 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 68 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 69 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 70 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 71 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 72 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

EXHIBIT 5
Obama's forged birth certificate

Thursday, December 18, 2008 Bad Stridence: Proof positive that credentials do not equal credibility Ron Polarik, PhD, MS
Synopsis Not long after the release of my final report last November, Obama's Born Conspiracy, a vicious rumor was started and bandied about the pro-Obama websites, that I'm a "fraud," that I "don't exist," and that this research report is "bunk." The source of this rumor, however, is a charlatan in every sense of the word. He has never read my final report, he is totally clueless about the research I conducted, and hopelessly confused about the entire birth certificate controversy. The rumormonger has managed to use his lofty-sounding, but irrelevant. credentials to fool other people into thinking that his lies, slurs, baseless conclusions, and fabricated images have refuted my research when, in fact, they repudiate his credibility and his competence. There is no way for anyone to judge a person's competence and credibility based on his credentials alone. If a person is dishonest in his actions and virtually delusional about his discoveries, then his credentials are meaningless. To put it another way, when a detractor thinks that his trash talk, interspersed with technical terms, can pass for real research, and that his credentials shield him from scrutiny, then that detractor is both a fraud and a fool who underestimates and insults the intelligence of the Internet audience. Introduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On June 12, I began my research on the image posted by the Daily Kos that was purported to be Obama's Certification of Live Birth. I did not cite my degree titles and credentials at the time because I wanted my work to speak for itself -- and it has, in spades. However, as I came to learn, there are some Internet users who give more credence to the paper credentials of a researcher than they give to the merits of the research itself. For this reason, the online community has been burned twice by "credentialed frauds" who falsely claimed to have proven that Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. One of these had initially taken credit for forging the COLB image (who later recanted his story), while the other was someone I revealed to be a fraud when I obtained a copy of a real 2007 COLB that did not match the "real one" that he said he had. Consequently, the ramifications of their actions were to cause people to mistrust anyone now claiming to have proven the COLB image was forged, especially if they listed themselves as an "expert." Therefore, the last thing I wished to do was to be lumped in with those prior frauds. My final research report, "Obama's Born Conspiracy," is the culmination of four months (now five) of intensive empirical research on Obama's alleged COLB image and photographs. It contains 160 pages of fully documented research and 140 images for supporting evidence. Anyone who reads this report thoroughly will know that it was written by a genuine researcher using sound, scientific methods to explore these forgeries in depth. Frauds do not produce 160-page reports with 140 images that fully document the steps taken, that clearly explain the phenomena under investigation, and more importantly, provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to validate the findings. However, not everyone appreciates all of the hard work that I have done and some people fervently wish that this report never existed. These are the people who still cling to the lie that Obama has shown his original birth certificate on the Internet. They are so desperate to prove me wrong that they would rather listen to fools than to facts. Predictably, the fools were coming out of the woodwork. After the release of my final report, I began hearing the rumors about who I am and what I did. I've dealt with critics before, but this one was different. This critic told a bald-faced lie that he debunked my final report when it is patently obvious that never read it. He is so totally clueless about the work I did, about the problems with the COLB images and photos, and about the entire birth certificate controversy, that I did not know whether to laugh at him or get angry. However, nobody calls me a "fraud," a "liar," and that I "manipulated evidence" without being confronted and challenged. I tried convincing him to remove his slanderous comments and baseless accusations from his website, and to quell the vicious rumor that he started, but he refused to do so. Consequently I am forced to write this response to set the record straight and to protect my reputation. He goes by the name of "Dr. Neal Krawetz," and he had the unmitigated gall to trash my final report -- which he never read -- in a hack-job titled, "Bad Science:
Page 73 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

How not to do image analysis, Part II." The great irony of his "Bad Science" screed is that it shows just how clueless, thoughtless, skillless, and disingenuous is Dr. Krawetz:

He is a liar who claimed that he "debunked" my final report when he never read it or the fifteen other reports I wrote going back to June; He's a charlatan who falsely used his credentials to fool others into thinking that he is more than qualified to critique my research; He is clueless as to the actual research I did and the results I found, preferring instead to tell lies and to fabricate findings in his head; He provided no relevant, concrete evidence of his own to support his baseless accusations, asking others to believe him on faith alone; He used unrelated images, that he intentionally manipulated for effect, to fraudulently claim that they "refute" my research findings; He used different image formats that he deceptively claimed were of the same type to trick his audience into accepting them as comparable; He closed off his blog when I confronted him, and then secretly replaced these same manipulated images to hide the evidence of his deceit; He does not have the research skills or the experience I have in working with COLB images to replicate even one of my experiments; He used lies, baseless accusations, faulty logic, unsubstantiated claims, and character assassinations to demean me and denigrate my research;. He's never seen or held an actual Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document as I have; He has never produced a single scanned copy of Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document while I have made over 100; He's never analyzed a single Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document image in depth as I have; He's never created a single test image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document while I have created over 600; He knows nothing about the Obama birth certificate controversy, confusing fiction for fact, and then making erroneous proclamations;

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
• • • • •

25 26

Page 74 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

He doesn't know what scanners can or cannot do; i.e., saying that they can't copy a COLB Seal, the folds, and its texture while I've done all three. He doesn't know what are scanner artifacts or even common JPG artifacts and frequently confuses the two; He tosses around technical terms to dazzle his audience but uses them incorrectly and inappropriately, and without definition; He falsely compared a magazine page (typographic text on white paper) and a paper COLB (laser-printed graphic on thin, green security paper); He frequently contradicts himself to the point where his conclusions don't match his assessments, and vice-versa; His screed and my report were peer-reviewed by an objective third party who gave my research a "Thumbs Up" and Krawetz a "Thumbs down." His screed was repudiated by World Net Daily, while my final report was corroborated by one of the top document forensics expert in the country.

The credentials Krawetz claims to have do not convey his credibility, but do confirm their irrelevance to my research report. Recently my final report was reviewed by one of the foremost forensic investigators in the country. She is a leader in document forensics and an expert in distinguishing forgery from genuineness. Her name is Sandra Lines, and she is a former Federal Examiner and a retired Law Enforcement Officer. Without question, she is infinitely more qualified than Krawetz to render an expert opinion on my final report, and she has corroborated it and fully supports its conclusions. Unless Krawetz can absorb information by osmosis, he has no excuse for failing to read my report. Since Krawetz has already planted both feet in his mouth, by going on record as having read it, it's too late for him to start now. Krawetz and his crowd like to taunt me with "Krawetz is a Real PhD with a Real Name and is a Real Expert," but I got my Masters degree before Krawetz was born, and my Doctorate while he was still in grade school. I can say, flat-out, that Krawetz does not have anything close to the research skills I have and, consequently, he could never replicate the research I conducted if he tried. Krawetz has done nothing to refute my research, and his plan to verbally tear me down in order to build himself up has not worked. I have prepared a detailed response to Krawetz's "Bad Science" screed below. It identifies all of his lies, falsehoods, distortions, character assassinations, baseless accusations, fallacious conclusions, flawed logic, and intentional deceptions that he made. For someone who claims to be such an "expert" on image graphics, Krawetz
Page 75 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

demonstrates throughout his "Bad Science" just how wrong someone with "credentials" can possibly be.

Response to "Bad Science," or "How not to review something you failed to read"

Krawetz has not read my report and he has no factual understanding of the Obama birth certificate controversy, which is patently obvious from the first words he utters (Krawetz in italics): Before I begin evaluating Polarik's claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim - that Obama was not born in Hawaii -- is false. (Lie #1) Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly authenticated Obama's COLB. (Lie #2) 27-June-2008. Janice Okubo from the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed that the document was valid. (Lie #3) 15-Aug-2008. Politifact validated the information. (Lie #4) 31-Oct-2008 (alternate link). Quote: Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. (True, but Lie#5 based on how he used it) Hawaii confirmed that Obama has a real birth certificate from Hawaii. Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists. Thus, the conspiracy has no basis. (Lie #6) Now, given that Hawaii confirms it, why would they release a fake COLB when they could just as easily release a new one? (Lie #7 ) Clearly, Krawetz has no idea what he's saying here and cannot discern fact from fiction. Krawetz does not even understand the basics of the birth certificate controversy, and what actually transpired in Hawaii's Health Department. In reference to me, Krawetz said, Today, there is only one person who continues to propagate the "COLB is fake" conspiracy. (Lie #8)
Page 76 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I don't know where Krawetz has been hiding for the past few months, but there are now tens of millions of people who continue to call for Obama to release his real, original birth certificate --something Obama has never done anywhere, at any time. Likewise, there are several million or so who are convinced that the COLB posted online is a fake. AOL recently conducted an online poll as to whether Obama's failure to produce his birth certificate So much for Krawetz's one-person "conspiracy." Krawetz is part of a shrinking minority who continue to claim that Obama had released his original birth certificate in mid-June. He calls himself "Ron Polarik" (an anonymous pseudonym -- not his real name), and he also uses bad science to support his claims.(Lie #9) "Anonymous pseudonym" is an oxymoron, and given that my name, Dr. Ron Polarik, is known around the world, I am hardly "anonymous." Krawetz uses the term, pseudonym, as a pejorative to imply that I am a "fraud." The truth is that "Dr. Ron Polarik" is the first person to blow the whistle on Obama and Factcheck for creating and proffering a false identification document, and in doing so, I did not ingratiate myself with the die-hard, Obama crowd who would like nothing better than to shut me up. For this and other legitimate reasons, I chose not to stand on a rooftop and shout my name or waving my credentials around like a flag as Dr. Krawetz has done in a desperate attempt to get attention. I am being cautious and rightfully so. Yet, what did I do to Krawetz to engender such utter distain? Nothing! Krawetz, on his own accord, came hunting after me with a vengeance, but he was outgunned from the start. Krawetz has clearly demonstrated that he knows nothing about the actual research I conducted over four months and nothing about the scientific methods I used. For him to even imply that I use "bad science," only underscores his pretentiousness. Someone has to end this charade, and it fell upon me to tell Krawetz that he's spitting into the wind. The first thing that Krawetz needs to do is take some Birth Certificate 101, as he does not know what is the difference between a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth and a Certification of Live Birth. He has no knowledge on what each of them contain, how they look in person or when they are scanned or copied. His "Bad Science" screed offers no relevant evidence whatsoever to support his claims and his accusations. Not a single COLB image scan is presented for examination. At the beginning of this hastily-prepared mess, Krawetz makes a rather astounding conclusion when he says that "Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot." Is there anything more preposterous than for Krawetz to admit that the document on the web "can be a forgery," but that document fraud is "no big deal?" If that's his logic, then why did he attack the research that would confirm his admission? For all his bluster, Krawetz has no clue about the seriousness of document fraud, the significance of Obama spending a million dollars to duck the issue entirely, as
Page 77 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

well as having no handle on what my research entails and the science behind it. After all, why let the biggest fraud in American political history get in the way of Kraetz cracking on me for no, good reason: Polarik's findings are not supported by the data. He has manipulated evidence, selectively ignored facts, and overlooked obvious findings. He has made over-reaching and gross assumptions, which vary from baseless to provable inaccurate. Moreover, he claims vague credentials that are unsupported by his work. I have serious doubts about Polarik having a Ph.D., but he sure has a lot of BS. Which part of that is NOT a bald-faced lie??? I never manipulated anything! Is Krawetz so full of himself to think that I would read this and then go off into a corner to cry? Does he think that I am as spineless as he is and would be afraid to call him out? After stripping away all of the vitriolic language in Krawetz's "Bad Science" screed, along with the lies, baseless accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and faulty logic, what remains is rather meaningless as it bears no relevance, whatsoever, to the research I conducted, to the results I found, and to the real process of scientific inquiry that is so foreign to him. Krawetz has forced me to do what I absolutely tried to avoid, and what I dread having to do now, and that is to take everything he wrote, go through it line by line, lie by lie, falsehood by falsehood, and point out every bogus claim and comment that he has made. Here we go: Polarik claims that a zoom-up of the letters contains off-color pixels that do not belong. For example, zooming in shows gray dots in the middle of the black letters. He claims that this means that the letters were replaced. (Lie #10) I never said anything about "off-color" pixels. I specifically mentioned "white and grayshaded pixels between the letters." I've said this repeatedly for six months. For example, zooming in shows gray dots in the middle of the black letters. He claims that this means that the letters were replaced. (Lie #11). I never said anything about any "gray dots in the middle of the black letters," either! These two statements confirm that Krawetz failed to read my final report, as well as any and all of my interim reports from June 13 to December 3. I have said it so many times that I am blue in the face, and I’ll say it again: that the lack of any greenish colored pixels in between the letters cannot occur naturally, and is a result of the original text being covered over with portions of the background and new text being typed on top of it. Krawetz just does not get it, and I doubt he ever will. Not when he copies one of my images and fashions a lie out of it.
Page 78 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

First, the highest copy quality of the COLB contains no instances of the word "BIRTH" that looks like this. (Lie #12) Does Krawetz really expect everyone to simply take his word for it, someone who has already made eleven previous lies? There is no evidence provided to even suggest that Krawetz did anything beyond looking at something with his naked eyes. Krawetz never identified what is the "highest copy quality of the COLB" that he saw, if any. I've seen every COLB ever posted along with unposted COLBs from 2006, 2007, and 2008. I seriously doubt that he did anything to enlarge this "copy of the COLB." For someone who claims that I use "bad science," one of the essential task for a researcher is to operationally define his terminology. In my final report -- which Krawetz never read -- I determined that there is no such thing as an Obama COLB image with the "highest copy quality." In my final report, I demonstrated that when the Factcheck COLB image is cropped to the same dimensions as the KOS COLB image, and then saved at the previous compression level (defined as the ratio between file size and memory size), they are virtually the same, and that the only difference between them are the somewhat higher color count in the Factcheck image. I took the trouble to analyze the COLBs at the pixel level by using a graphics program that overlays a pixel-sized grid on top of the image to differentiate among the individual "dots" of color. Since the pixel grid is not saved or copied, I made a screen capture of the grid and the image: <IMG src="http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Test-COLBs/web-paint1to1.jpg"> <IMG src="http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Test-COLBs/web-paint12to1.jpg"> But, where is the second image I put below it for comparison?? This "BIRTH" image was created five months ago from the KOS COLB image and using the same screen capture process, I made a comparison image from a real, 2008 COLB. Krawetz conveniently left it out, that is, if he even found it on his own. My final report has 140 images, and Krawetz has to deliberately break up a set of mine to do what exactly? Where is this "highest copy quality" to which Krawetz refers? Does it exist only in his head along with the unsubstantiated conclusions he made? Once again, I refer back to my final report where the followed comparisons are made:

23 24 25 26
Page 79 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Here is the "HOUR OF BIRTH" header from Barack's COLB enlarged 5 times:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

<IMG src="http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/BHO-birth.jpg"> Here's the same header taken from Dan's 2007 COLB scanned at the same resolution with the same amount of file compression: <IMG src="http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/Dan-birth.jpg"> For those who still cling to the myth that Obama actually released his real Certification of Live Birth, there are no limits to the number of cockeyed excuses they have made to permit this bogus birth certificate to exist -- which it does not -- while simultaneously calling for my research to be replicated and peer-reviewed! In six months time since the question, "Where is Obama's original birth certificate"" was first asked, there has been this one, and only one, scan image presented that Obama supporters allege was made from the front side of Obama's "original birth certificate." Obama's "Fight The Smears website still proclaims it as such." Meanwhile, I have made well over 100 original COLB scans, both front and back, at various settings, that I have thoroughly analyzed and repeatedly tested. how is what I did in any way comparable to zero COLB scans made by Krawetz or zero COLB copies that he supposedly examined? I demonstrated that the pixel patterns I discovered were also visible in the Factcheck image, but were not present in any of the more than 100 scans I made using three different scanners! "Word of mouth" is not a part of the scientific method.

Every instance [of the word, "BIRTH"] has that green thatched background around the letters. (Lie #12) By saying that every instance has that green thatched background around the letters, he contradicts himself because he acknowledges later on that the lack of greenish pixels around the letters are the result of "compression algorithms." apparently Krawetz is looking at a COLB copy at its original size and without any magnification. No wonder he does not see anything of interest! If you look back at the previous Obama COLB image, you will see no "green thatched background" around the letters. Remember that I never talked about any "pixel halos" (as Factcheck called them) but specifically limited my analysis to the pixels in between the letters. This distinction is crucial and one that Krawetz repeatedly misses.

Page 80 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Along with the missing green from outside the letters, Polarik claims that there should be a green thatched pattern within the letters ("O", "B", etc. have internal areas that should contain green) (Lie #13). I never said anything about a "green thatched pattern" being inside the letters. I have to conclude at this point, that K is hopelessly confused as to what I said, what I did, and what I examined. Krawetz has absolutely no business claiming that he has done otherwise. If he had read my report, then he would have known that I have only talked about the white and grayish pixels in between the letters. I specifically stated that the appearance of these white and grayish pixels in between the letters are what rule out any naturally-occurring process. This is not rocket science for anyone who actually read my final report would know this. However, the green thatch [in the middle of the letters] is not as clear as the rest of the image. This happens because the image is at a very low quality (Error #1). He said earlier that he was looking at the "highest quality" COLB image. Now he says that the image "is at a very low quality." So, which is it? I don't know how Krawetz defines, "Quality," but, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. From a pragmatic point-of-view, quality is a measure of how closely a perceived image matches the physical object in appearance. I have a real, paper COLB, whereas Krawetz has never seen one. I know what its physical appearance looks like and what its virtual appearance looks like in both digital scans and photographs. In other words, I speak from facts and experience working with a real COLB, something that no one else has done. The reason why I have 700 images is because they are products of all the tests I ran, comparing all of the other alternative explanations that people have given as to why I was obtaining the results I found. If I wanted to "manipulate evidence," then all I would have are a handful of images I "doctored," as "Dr" Krawetz might claim. JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm that drops off low contrast colors and preserves high contrast. (Errors #2 and #3) Does Krawetz think that everyone reading his screed understands what he means by saying that "JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm?" Except for Mac owners, the average reader does not know that JPEG and JPG are synonymous. Saying that, "JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm," is like saying that "automobiles use energy inefficiently." A JPEG may use any one of a dozen separate compression algorithms that attempt to control or eliminate different kinds of artifacts that degrade the perceived quality of a JPG image. JPG artifacts do not, however, cause the white and grayish pixels in between the letters of the Obama COLB, and anyone who claims that they do is dead wrong. End of story.

Page 81 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The black text on light background is preserved, but the pale green thatch on light green paper blends together when combined with the high-contrast black lettering. (Error #4 and #5) What does Krawetz mean when he says, light background, light green paper, and pale green thatch? The paper used for the COLB document is green with darker green pairs of bars printed on it that run perpendicular to each other and in alternating patterns. The original paper COLB shows clear, black lettering on the green patterned paper. If a real COLB is scanned as a color document at 300DPI or higher, you will be able to see nothing but green inside, around, and between the letters. There is no automatic blending in colors that would yield gray and white pixels in between the letters, but green and white pixels everywhere else. The loss of the green background when scanned is intentional. Security paper, such as the green thatched background, is designed to distort when scanned. That's a security measure. Thus, even if Polarik had not tampered with the image, removing the green from around the letters, the thatch background should not be crisp. (Error #6 and #7, Bald-faced Lie #14 and Slander #1) Krawetz is calling me a liar, here by saying that I "tampered with the image." That is a bald-faced lie and slanderous, too. Besides never reading my final report, Krawetz has also never experimented with COLB images, never made a scan image of a real COLB, never made a photograph of a COLB, never made a scan image or photograph of anything even remotely resembling a COLB, and never stopped to realize that he is uniquely unqualified to review my research. For "comparison" purposes, he presents two images comprised of two, totally-different formats that he fraudulently claims were made from one scan allegedly made from an object that is totally incomparable to a real COLB in every way possible: The biggest COLB online is 2550x3300 pixels. At 300dpi, that is 8.5"x11" (a full sheet of paper). I scanned in a portion of a Newsweek article at 300dpi. The portion that I selected contains text at various sizes and thicknesses. Looking at the paper version, it all looks uniform and black. However, the scanned image (full color, no enhancements, scanned on an HP Scanjet 3570c) shows that the black text contains a variety of colors. (bald-faced Lie #15 & #16) Krawetz is intentionally trying to pull a fast one here, and he thinks that everyone else is simply too ignorant to know what he is doing. Anyone in their right image-graphic mind would honestly say that JPEG is not suitable for images with black text on white paper and images with sharp lines. Conversely, someone who didn't know Jack about images or scanners would not think twice about taking a two-color, black on white magazine page, original, printed by Rotogravure at 2400 dpi, and then scan it as a full-color copy at 300DPI -- which is what Krawetz did.
Page 82 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On the other hand, if someone wanted to intentionally introduce a lot of color noise into a second image, and pretend like it's just an enlargement of the first, he would change the image format. Then he would further deceive his audience by claiming that his test images are the same thing as copying a green-paper COLB document graphic that was printed by a laser, then he would have done everything that Krawetz did. However, this image is a 72 DPI JPG, and not 300 DPI. It is also saved at 2.5% Krawetz presents a second image that he claims is a 400% enlargement of the previous image: A closer inspection of the photo; i.e., looking at the image information, shows it to be a 24-bit color PNG bitmap, an image format with six times the number of colors as the first image. Here is how this demonstration should have been done (even though it is totally unrelated to scanning COLBS): Original scanned JPG image (taken from Road & Track Magazine):

All of the images are approximately the same file size and memory size as the ones Krawetz used. What is different from his is that I did not deceptively and secretly introduce noise into the image.

Page 83 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

During the time that he locked me out of his blog, Krawetz switched the images shown above! I was able to enter via another portal, so his attempt to block me failed. Plus, the night before I sent my Cease and Desist demand, I made a full HTML copy of his web page that contained "Bad Science II" or BS-II for short, so I know what images were subsequently switched. Now, instead of a JPG and a PNG, there are two GIF files, which are image formats restricted to 256 colors, instead of the 4,527 colors for the JPG and 27,557 colors for the PNG. In other words, Krawetz switched to a format that did not reveal the color noise of the second image that he deliberately interjected into the first. Thus, Krawetz is not only a liar, but also a desperate one as well, willing to use deception and trickery to support his baseless claims. Given that he has now flimflammed his audience twice, what he says below is now meaningless gibberish. The areas of text that should be all black are not uniformly black. Combining these "nonblack" areas with the JPEG lossy compression (which uses 8x8 blocks) yields square patches that are different dark colors. (Error #8 & #9 and Lie #17) Krawetz deliberately introduced noise into his scan image by creating a color JPG from a B&W source. He lied about the scanning resolution of the images. He lied about the image format -- TWICE! He's talking about the presence of "dark colors" in an image that should only contain white, black, and minimal shades of gray. He created these "square patches that are different dark colors" by increasing the JPEG compression and by using the wrong scan settings initially. These random dark gray pixels would not have been there if the Newsweek page was scanned properly and honestly, namely using no more than 16 colors. These look like the exact same artifacts that Polarik claims indicate a forgery. Polarik is wrong -- they are nothing more than scanner artifacts. (Lies 18 & 19) They look absolutely nothing like the pixel patterns I identified. His claim that these random pixels are "the exact same artifacts" is a bald-faced lie. Does he really think his audience is that stupid? He's already said that I am. First, he intentionally created an irrelevant image, and then fabricated a second image for "comparison" that he used to fool people into thinking it was equivalent to the COLB images I examined. Krawetz intentionally introduced noise into his image that should not have been there. Krawetz, therefore, is the fraud. The pixel patterns I found in between the letters are irrefutably not scanner artifacts, and anyone who say that they are is flat-out wrong. In fact, this is how I am able to tell if a critic of my research knows what he's talking about, Clearly, Krawetz has demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about my research findings, about scanning COLB documents, about analyzing COLB images, and has also shown a willingness to fabricate evidence to fit his conclusions – which are also way off the mark.

Page 84 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On Claim #1, Polarik has manipulated the data, forgot about the purpose of security paper, ignored the image quality, and incorrectly determined that scanner artifacts are signs of a forgery. (Lies #20, #21, #22, and #23) Remember than Krawetz never read my final report, and even if he did, he does not understand even the basics of analyzing scanner images and would have made a lot more false statements and errors than he has already made. The "manipulation" charge is a blatant lie, and he is dead wrong about "scanner artifacts," even if he had used a color COLB, instead of a black & white magazine page. Again, anyone who claims that "scanner artifacts" caused the pixel patterns I found is dead wrong and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Polarik claims that the border looks different from other examples of Hawaii's birth certificate. In particular, he says that it looks blurry. We don't know the history of the actual image (was this a scan converted to JPEG, resaved as another JPEG, etc.). What we do know is that the image is at a very low quality, and JPEG loses fine details when saved at a low quality.(Errors #10, #11, and #12) If Krawetz had bothered to read my report, then he might have known that these statements of his are erroneous, and that, in fact, after four months of experimenting with 700 images, I do know the history of the actual image because I was able to replicate it. However, he demonstrates, yet again, his lack of knowledge and understanding of scanning and image characteristics, both in general, and in particular, as they relate to copying a paper COLB. Polarik continues to say that the blurriness is because one border was applied on top of another. (This is a fun argument because it is so stupid.) (Error #13 and Lie #24) I never said that "one border was applied on top of another," and Krawetz compounds his lie by making a derogatory comment about me, "This is a fun argument because it is so stupid." The only thing that is "stupid" is making judgments on something he does not understand and on a report that he has never read. I said that the green patterned background was forged separately before the border was ever applied, and that the border came from a second COLB and was pasted on top of the green patterned background. I proved this by replicating the steps required to make the border separately and then to add it on top of the "new" background. The discussion that follows his "stupid" remark makes no sense whatsoever, and are in no way even close to how I replicated the border. He describes three processes, "overwrite," "selection," and "merge," that have no connection to the well-known process of "layering," or placing one image layer on top of another image layer. This process is more commonly known as, "superimposing one image onto another," and when the word, "Photoshopped" is mentioned, it is this process of superimposition that most often comes to mind – even for people who have never worked with graphics.
Page 85 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Polarik incorrectly concludes that the border was added to the image. However, I and other analysts have been unable to identify any sign of digital manipulation. (Lies #25 and #26) Krawetz has done absolutely nothing to refute my findings, nor has anyone else. This statement is bogus times two. As is typical throughout his screed, he makes unsubstantiated statements and presents his opinions as if they were cold, hard facts, without any concrete evidence to support them whatsoever. He is expecting people to take him at his word, but since we now know that he cannot be trusted to present images honestly, we should not even believe a word he says. The reason why he was "unable to identify any sign of digital manipulation" is because he did Jack-squat to find any. We now know that Krawetz does not know anything about how the COLB image was made, how it was forged, how to recognize signs of manipulation done to it, how to replicate the actual manipulations done to it, and to validate them through experimental testing. The reference to "other analysts" is a red herring, because it implies that these other "analysts" of his are as misinformed and confused as is Krawetz. Hawaii (and every other state) uses a variety of forgery deterrents and regularly change the deterrents. A very fine black-thatched border, like the light green thatched background, should not scan correctly. (Error #14) First of all, that is meaningless to even mention because it's not even relevant to the issue at hand, namely comparing a true, original scan image to one that is an obviously altered scan image. Additionally, the borders on 2008 COLBs scan exactly as shown on the paper, or hardly something that could be called, a security border. Krawetz never performed even a single scan of a real COLB as I did, nor did he even look at more than one COLB scan, nor did he print off any scans, nor to try any of the experiments I did. Krawetz never read my final report and that onus is on him. Depending on the scanner, it may appear blurred or bi-tonal or contain a different patterned than the one found on the paper. Depending on the scanner, it may appear blurred or bi-tonal or contain a different patterned than the one found on the paper. Thus, the dark, blurry background is more likely due to the security paper and not due to manipulation. (Errors #15 & #16) Krawetz's failure to scan a paper COLB or to analyze other COLB scans, or to conduct any tests to see if the borders can be replicated by any other means, or even to provide some concrete examples to support his conjectures, are what led him to state these erroneous conclusions. I demonstrated, actually and factually, that Krawetz's conclusions are not only patently false, but are merely thoughts off the top of his head. Then again, without a copy of the official document and a list of the various and everchanging security methods employed by Hawaii, any visual analysis of "it looks wrong" is nothing more than speculation. (which is exactly what Krawetz has done)
Page 86 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Krawetz just affirmed what I said about his lack of knowledge: that he has been stating nothing more than mere speculations. He does not have a copy of the official COLB document, nor copies of five of the seven possible border patterns used between 2001 and 2008. I do, and he doesn't, but that fact has not prevented him from making more erroneous speculations. Of course, borders could be added to a fake document, printed, and then scanned in and I would not be able to detect it. But that isn't what Polarik is claiming happened. He says that they were added to the digital image. That claim is not supported by the image compression level, color scheme, and other artifacts. Polarik is both wrong, and not in a position to validate even if he were right. (Lie #27, and Bald-Faced Lies #28 and #29) Saying that someone could "add Hawaii's borders" to a fake document is totally ridiculous that further highlights how clueless is Krawetz. I would love to hear how Krawetz would find these "borders, “and he would add them to a "fake document." What does he even mean by "fake document?" Now, I have gone through the steps of digitally adding a separate border to a premade background, as part of the process for reconstructing the Kos COLB image. Krawetz does not even know the process I used to do it -- he would if he read my report -- and therefore, he cannot comment on it. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION! The answer that Krawetz gives above, that "Polarik is both wrong, and not in a position to validate even if he were right," are bald-faced lies, uttered by a man who does not possess the skills to detect the image alterations I found, to identify the steps that were taken to create the image forgery, and to follow those same steps to create a clone of the original forgery. His statement, that my "claim is not supported by the image compression level, color scheme, and other artifacts, reveals both Krawetz's ignorance of my research and his arrogance in denigrating something he has never done at all. Pretty bold talk for someone who never read my report, never bothered to understand the issues, and never conducted one iota of real COLB research. I, on the other hand, spent four months producing multiple variations of real COLB scans, while Krawetz has done ZIP! "The missing seal" and "The missing fold" Polarik claims that the online COLB is missing the official seal and folds. (SOS #1 & #2) The missing seal and fold are the Same Old Stuff from June, and it proves that Krawetz's is rehashing old issues, and has never read my final report. These two missing elements were noted by thousands of other people who voiced their concerns when the Obama COLB was first published on June 12 of this year. Krawetz's comment sounds like it was pulled from his "Bad Science, Part I" in verbatim. I can only conclude that Krawetz has got his head in his past here. The missing lower fold is still an issue, however, and one I discussed at length in my final report.

Page 87 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I don't know what to say here except "Polarik is wrong." He seems to not mind hyperfocusing on pixels in the text, but ignores the pixels that disprove his conclusion. This isn't just "selection bias", this is intentional ignorance. (Lies #30 and #31) I don't know what to say here, either, when someone points at me and says, "You're wrong," without knowing anything about what I did. However, I do know what to say when someone calls me "ignorant," and it is not "Happy Holidays." The charge that I am ignoring any pixels is patently false, as well as saying that there are pixels that disprove my conclusion. Krawetz has never even looked at a COLB scan at the pixel level. He provides a section of an image that he says came from the "large online document," which I assume to be the 2550 x 3300, 300DPI Factcheck copy. The edge detection that Krawetz misapplied here is probably the Sobel technique, and he did a lousy job, too. The seal is hardly visible at all in his image. I originally said on June 13 that a real COLB image was used as the template, and therefore, I would expect it to have a Seal. I would also expect it to have two folds. Before this technique was presented as a way to highlight the Seal, I was unable to see enough of the Seal to know what it was, and neither could anyone else at the time. The image that Krawetz supplied is junk. Polarik says that you should be able to see the embossed pattern on the scanned image without image enhancement. The quality of the seal's appearance depends on the scanner and image quality. Remember: the seal is not a change in color; it is a change in texture that the scanner may not capture well. In this case, I see it above, but I use enhancement to make it easier to see. (Error #17) Every scan that I made using a $99 scanner without any image enhancements produced both folds, the Seal, and the texture of the paper, as well as the scans made by others, so Krawetz's claims do not reflect reality. Speaking of reality, since the Seal causes ridges in the paper to form, these, in turn, causes shadows to occur around them, and that's why a cheap scanner set on AUTO will pick them up, time after time, Polarik refuses to acknowledge the seal because admitting it exists would damage his claim. (Lie #32) I spent an entire chapter on the Seal in my final report. In fact, it was the Seal that conclusively proved the Obama COLB image and photographs to be fake. As I noted, Krawetz is stuck in time, back on June 13, before I (and may others) learned how to use the Sobel edge detection process found on the GIMP program. Polarik also claims that the second fold is missing. In this regard, I must admit that I do not see the second fold. However, I have scanned many pieces of folded paper and not seen folds (scanners pick up color, not texture) (Lie #33 or Error #18)
Page 88 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I have proven, conclusively, that scanners do, indeed, clearly copy the fold. If Krawetz is not picking it up in his scans. then he is not performing them correctly. Given that he made a color scan of a B&W original, the latter might also be the case. What I do see in the COLB is evidence suggesting a fold. Follow the right edge of the right border down the page. It has a slight lean inward, meaning it is crooked. At about a third of the way from the bottom, the border changes direction, bending outward. It changes direction where the second fold should be located. And since the green thatched pattern does not show any breaks or separations, it is very unlikely that this is a paste or splice. (Lie #34) This is pure bunk. Any kinks in the border prove that it came from another COLB, and do not confirm the presence of a second fold line. There is NO second fold line, except in Krawetz's imagination. Polarik claims the border and seal do not match the form from 2007 or 2008. He forgot to mention that the bottom corner says "11/01" meaning it is the 2001 form, and not either 2007 or 2008. (Major error #19) As I said repeatedly, Krawetz has no knowledge of what is a COLB, and he never read any of my blog posts. In fact, Krawetz never read any other blog posts to know that the "11/01" identifier is the date that the current COLB form was introduced, and has nothing to do with the date the COLB was printed, the date stamp, the embossed Seal, and the border. There is a difference between "real" and "authentic". Digital image analysis can tell if an image has been manipulated, but not if the original source was authentic. In fact, any analysis based strictly on the online image cannot be used to validate the authenticity of the border. (Errors #20 & #21) I have repeatedly said that the COLB image was made from a real COLB, but not from Obama's and is not an authentic representation of Obama's birth record. However, nobody would ever create a forged document image if an authentic copy of the original is easily obtained. Krawetz second statement is patently false. If the border shown on a 2008 COLB image is the same as the one used on the 2007 COLB, then the border shown in the 2008 COLB image is not an authentic 2008 border. It's simple logic. The only one who can say whether the border and document are authentic is the state of Hawaii (Error #22) This statement is a non sequitur. I have two 2008 COLBs and the borders, layout, and Seal are identical. When someone personally picks up a copy of his or her COLB from Vital Records, and has it stamped by Vital Records, it is certified as authentic. This statement is thrown in here as a bogus Catch-22 that because no one has ever seen
Page 89 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Obama's real COLB -- which we know does not exist given all of the evidence -- then we cannot assess its "authenticity." That is hokum. And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation of a false COLB is "pretty ridiculous." (Lie #35) No such accusation has ever been made. What we are postulating is that a "manufactured COLB" was posted on the internet to fool people into believing that they had just seen Obama's real COLB, when in fact, nobody has seen it,. and that the document shown in the image does not exist in reality. So none of Polarik's claims hold up to inspection. What about Polarik's credentials?...So let's see..."Dr. Ron Polarik". Many years ago I saw a comedy troupe called Duck's Breath Mystery Theater. They had a skit called "Ask Dr. Science". In the show, Dr. Science legally changed his first name to "Doctor" in order to give his theories more credibility. ("There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance," he says, "and only I have managed to erase that line.") (Slander #1 through about #25) The only one who can say whether the border and document are authentic is the state of Hawaii. And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation of a false COLB is "pretty ridiculous." (Lie #36) As far back as 15-Aug-2008, they have said that the COLB image is "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate".(Lie #37) Since Polarik has never claimed to be an expert in Hawaiian birth certificates, I'm going to have to go with the State's opinion here and conclude that Polarik is wrong.(Lie #37) I am an expert in Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth, and that's the entire point of my final report -- which Krawetz never read. Krawetz is at the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who knows Jack-squat about the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. What is so typical of a Leftist coward who runs from confrontation is to feign indignation when I angrily responded to his trash talk. He cherry-picked my comments and then lectures me as to what a "PhD should do." I did not copy the rest of his condescending and libelous remarks, but the proof is in the pudding: Krawetz has conclusively proven that credentials do not create credibility, for whatever credentials Krawetz holds, they were of no use to him in reviewing my final report -- which he never did. He made multiple lies and errors throughout his critique that actually gave his credentials a big, black eye. I ask that I be judged on my work, but
Page 90 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

when someone like Krawetz comes along who does not know what he is saying and has never read my reports, then that individual has no right to make any comments about me or my research. The bottom line is that Krawetz has tried every excuse possible, and every trick in the book to invalidate my research and to discredit me, and he has fallen flat on his face. He did not so much as make a dent in my research. By failing to counter my claims, Krawetz reinforced them. The forgery evidence is irrefutable, and that is not going to change by virtue of any claims made by charlatans like Krawetz or anyone else. I am sure that his remarks will continue to be posted on many pro-Obama websites, whose owners would like nothing better than for my research to be invalidated. Yet, the only person who manipulated evidence and who masqueraded as an expert qualified to judge my research, is Neal Krawetz, and he is now duly notified that his slanderous actions will not be tolerated. Krawetz says that he "stands behind his claims about me," except for the fact that I've challenged him to prove that the pixel anomalies I found are scanner artifacts, and he failed to accept my challenge. In what will be a shock to many of Krawetz's recent supporters, I'm not the first person on whom he's done a hack job, and then turned tail and hide when challenged. Here is an incident that happened in the Spring of last year when a company named GOBBLES called out Krawetz for making false associations: GOBBLES is calling out Dr. Neal Krawetz. Dated April 21, 2007 Dear fans, Below is an email we sent to Dr. Neal Krawetz, author of "who_is_n3td3v.pdf", a document that uses flawed logic to "prove" that GOBBLES Security members are behind the alias n3td3v, which obviously is not true. We have tried numerous times to establish contact with the good doctor, and to have him publish an apology and retract his libelous allegations. He is however adamant in his position that he is correct, and refuses to entertain any evidence presented that proves his conclusions contrary. Since he is no longer answering our emails, and authoring articles on the subject of internet character defamation for security focus, we have no choice but to call him on his bullshit publicly. If you run a security conference and would like to provide the venue for the challenge described below, please contact us immediately. For the record, we have never had anything to do with the online identity n3td3v, and to our collective knowledge have had no contact in any way with the individual(s) behind the alias. Also for the record, Neal

Page 91 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3

Krawetz is an academic fraud who cannot cite the source of the axioms he constantly refers to, since the basis of all his research is clearly horseshit. In God We Trust, GOBBLES Security

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 92 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The similarities between what Krawetz did to me and to GOBBLES serve to reinforce my assessments of him. I can relate to the issues that GOBBLES Security raised about Krawetz. He has deleted all of my messages to him. He has refused to retract his libelous allegations against me, and refused to entertain any evidence that disproves his conclusions about my research. Likewise, since Krawetz has also locked me out of his blog, I, too, have to call him out on his lies and false accusations in a public venue. If Krawetz really wants to stand behind his trashing of me and my research, then let him validate his claims, openly and honestly. Let him try and recreate the white and grayshaded pixel patterns between the letters on Obama's bogus COLB by scanning alone. Likewise, let him prove that what I observed as signs of forging are only JPG artifacts. Let him try and recreate the COLB border by scanning alone. Let him prove that the border and the text on the Obama COLB image were produced together and at the same time. I am not the one who has been bragging about his credentials, or putting someone else down for theirs. Only Krawetz has done that. I am not the one trying to grab some glory by being the first person to refute someone else's research. What I am is simply this: the only person on the planet to have ever deciphered how the bogus Obama image was made, and to use that information to replicate it, including the telltale pixel patterns, the separate border, the missing second Seal, and so on, by scanning a real, paper COLB document and then graphically altering it as the forger might have done. What will be instructive are some of the comments made about my research from an objective reviewer, named Chuck, who has seen both my report and Krawetz's screed. Here’s a brief...list I made, while going through the “final” report by Dr. Polarik. Good means he found something interesting, which I also found. Good: He points out a resample goof by KOS. I believe he’s noting they went and created their cropped image, and ended up with the same number of pixels. I think that’s a common mistake - leaving “resample” on. Probably nothing nefarious here. Good: Factcheck.org photo session of the piece of paper “taken in Aug”, had EXIF date of March 12th. Just odd.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Good: “missing green” - what’s the rest look like? could be gone because of level adjust? All the other text has this same “effect”. Good: ‘header text absolutely looks pasted. ‘artifacts abound’. When I first saw an isolated, cropped image of the “suspect” text, it did look pasted. See my previous - it doesn’t. Good: - where are the folds? The scan doesn’t show the folds like one would expect. When enhanced, only the top fold can be seen. The photo session shows a tri-folded document. Good: it does NOT look like a scan of a physical document. No 3D features such as the edge of the paper or folds. I agree - all other scans of COLBs he has show folds. All scans I’ve ever done myself show folds, unless some exceptional adjustments are made even then, there are still remnants of all folds. Really Good: Seal too small. It measures 1.5? A 2001 seal is 1.675, and Polarik claims 2008 seal is same (or at least, larger than 2007). This one is a big oddity. I measured BO’s COLB seal at 1.5?. I found a scan of a 2001 HI COLB - its seal measured 1.675?. Polarik himself says the 2008 is larger than BO’s 2007. Very odd one here.

Outwardly, this [KOS image] appears to be WAY over processed - no detail. The border detail is terrible. I would say, the text artifacts aren’t from pasting, but rather due to high compression and/or multiple compression cycles. Levels are blown out.| This does NOT look like a scan of a real document. It is extremely hard to remove folds so completely. If enhanced, only the top fold is visible. Looking at the full RGB histogram - there are NO mid-tones. Odd for a scan. Again, doesn’t look like a real scan, but more like a digitally rendered image (such as an original from a page layout application). No embossing in seal - it would have shown in scan easily. The photographed document seems to show the embossing, but the scan doesn’t. They look like two different documents. I measure the KOS seal as 1.5? - is this 2007 or 2008? I found a HI COLB from 2001 and measured its seal at 1.675?. Polarik claims 2008 seal is bigger than the seal in BO’s 2007 COLB. This seems to be a problem. No folds - again, doesn’t look like a scanned, physical document.

21 22 23 24 25 26
• •

Page 93 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Dr. Krawetz doesn’t have a lot of real strong arguments or analysis reputing him [that I could find], despite his low opinion [of Dr. Polarik]. The “Xenon” work doesn’t mean much, given what looks like an abundance of compression artifacts. A real scan would have midtones, but the lack thereof might be from over correction and overprocessing. A real scan would have a “3D” appearance - folds, edges to paper. There is definitely something different between what’s in the photographs and the scan. However, except for the seal, the scanning issues (missing folds and embossing) could be either ineptness or something deliberate to hide something - we can only guess what, if anything. The seal size discrepancy is the biggest problem I see.

Epilogue

I hope that this commentary will be instructive for those who are not familiar with my research and/or who have been led astray by Neal Krawetz's "Bad Science" boondoggle. As I said above: before making any hasty judgments about me or my research, you have to read the entire final report first, and to read it with comprehension. Then, look around at what my critics have to offer in rebuttal. Whether you agree or disagree with the central premise of the research, that America still has not seen Obama's original paper, long-form birth certificate, your decision will not be made on the basis of someone's stated credentials, but on the validity and significance of the research.

Page 94 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 6

Page 95 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 96 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 7

Page 97 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 98 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 8

Page 99 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 100 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 101 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 9

Page 102 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 10

Page 103 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 104 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 11

Page 105 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 106 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 12
Delivered to all members of Congress August 5th and 6th, 2009 August 3, 2009 Attn: All Members of the House and Senate Re: Senate Resolution 511 on April 10th of 2008
From: Carl Swensson

165 Burke St Suite 101 Stockbridge, GA 30281 Ph: 678-438-6138 To whom it may concern, On April 10th, 2008 Senate resolution 511 was passed acknowledging Sen. John McCain’s eligibility to be POTUS based on the fact that his parents (plural) were both U.S. Citizens. Your understanding of the requirement for “Natural Born” status as it concerned Mr. McCain was mostly correct. The only thing you failed to mention was the fact that he was born in Colon, Panama which was NOT a U.S. Military base. Please correct me if I am in error but the Constitution CLEARLY states that you must be Natural Born in order to be President. Our founding fathers were adamant on this subject and much was written about it. The common thread was really quite simple, You must be born of citizens of the country and be born on that countries soil. Herein lies the problem. There is undeniable proof that Mr. Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. citizen and as the Senate resolution clearly states, that IS a requirement yet you continue to ignore this fact and have thrown us into a Constitutional crisis. We demand this error be corrected now. Not weeks, months or years from now as this is a crime of the highest nature and your refusal to deal with it only confirms your complicity which will be addressed when this issue is resolved. Many people have focused on the Birth Certificate and yes, it is important but not the main issue as this letter points out. We will not be led astray with this Birthing nonsense and neither should you. Clearly, he is unqualified as there has never been an amendment to change our Constitution and you DID take an Oath to uphold that sacred document.

Page 107 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Continued refusal to uphold your Oath puts you in breach of contract with American citizens, your employers. Please rectify this error in judgment at the earliest possible convenience as we are watching your actions with a keen eye towards complicity and Misprision of Felony. You should also be aware that a new document has been circulating on the Internet which shows Barack Hussein Obama as being born in Mombasa, Kenya and although we have no idea of its authenticity, it should show you that this issue will never go away and only by your actions can this be resolved. Attached is a copy of that document and it is our understanding that many more variations of this can be expected to flood the internet. Again, you, and only you, can put a stop to this by recognizing and acting in good faith on the letter of the law as written in the Constitution. Attached, you will find Criminal Complaints accusing Barack Husein Obama of Fraud and Treason. Treason charges can only be submitted upon the witness of two to the crime. We give you six Military men who have courageously stepped forward and demand action be taken to remove this Usurper. In summary, Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was clearly defined by Emmerich de Vattel in 1791 and used in the formation of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution and it states:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its 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 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, 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, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. It’s my opinion that the term “natural born citizen” was understood by all politically-savvy thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries so much so that even President Chester Arthur hid the fact

that he wasn’t a natural born citizen in order to become president.
This means neither Barack Obama nor John McCain could be defined as natural born citizens, proving that those who would claim to rule and reign over us give no thought to “law” if it impedes their ambitions but apply that same “law” to us if it would increase their titles, status and wealth. April 10th, 2008, The U.S. Senate confirms the Citizenship issue in its resolution 511 Aug. 3rd, 2009, America waits for your action to resolve this issue/crime.

Sincerely, Carl A. Swensson, Jr.

Page 108 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 109 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

EXHIBIT 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 14
PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authorities

Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen; Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims; Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery; Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed; Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii; Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;

Total Signatures: 438,349 http://www.wnd.com/obama_petition

Page 110 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 November 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 15
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

Canada Free Press - Printer Friendly Page
© V2.0 - CJ Website Design
www.cj-design.com

Canada Free Press & Northeast Intelligence Network Exclusive Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to
Email Article
By Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod Bio

Photo Gallery
<a

Do you remember Watergate? href="http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=18589&m=3&amp;c=915" Thirty-five years ago this target="_blank"></a> Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixon administration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of the Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution. Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy. Although we do not have the birth certificate or proof of ineligibility, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press have documentation of a cover-up relating to the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office. The proof we possess not only exposes a well orchestrated cover-up, but also provides critical insight into why the topic of Obama’s eligibility has failed to gain traction in the corporate media.

Page 111 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse - should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November. After receiving and authenticating the document, US based veteran private investigator Douglas J. Hagmann opened a full scale investigation into the media blackout, with specific emphasis on tracing the blackout origins to those issuing them. This investigation was conducted in conjunction with Judi McLeod, founding editor of Canada Free Press and Brian Thompson, CFP Information Technology chief following a meeting near Toronto, Ontario last December. At that meeting, it was decided to keep the existence of the document secret until additional evidence could be obtained. Today, after an extensive eight month investigation, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are breaking their silence and revealing explosive information about a widespread cover-up that began at the earliest stages of the Obama presidential campaign. The cover-up traces back to some of the most powerful and influential people in the U.S. and continues today. Summary of the Evidence

As noted above, we are in possession of a written account by a well known national talk show host who details how he was prohibited to discuss the controversy of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility as president of the United States. This signed document cites exact dates and times when he was forbidden to discuss any aspect of the birth certificate controversy, and includes direct references to the individuals responsible for such prohibitions. Further, his statement identifies the individuals who originated the orders and their positions, and confirms that failure to adhere to the order would likely end his career in that industry. He also confirms that other, less specific but more menacing threats were implied during conversations with those making the subject off limits. Although we possess the original document containing the name and contact information of the talk show host, we have decided not to publish his name or network affiliation at this time. Based on the correspondence from this individual and respecting the nature of the threats to him personally and professionally, it is our decision to allow him to enjoy anonymity until such time as he decides to reveal the facts himself at a time of his choosing. From multiple interviews conducted within the last eight months, we have obtained information from other sources, independent of the above, who have also been instructed
Page 112 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

to avoid any discussion of the birth certificate issue at all costs, to wit: The account of an administrative assistant employed in New York City by a cable network news station who provided significant, detailed information of a 2008 meeting between the top network executive and four-(4) well-known news anchors. This source confirmed that she drafted the memo to the various hosts to notify them of the date, time and location of this high-level meeting at the request of the network’s top executive. Present at this meeting, she verified that the network official issued “warnings” to the personalities “to avoid any on-air discussion of the birth place, eligibility, and news accounts of litigation compelling [Barack Hussein] Obama to produce a legitimate copy of his birth certificate.” She stated that the network executive had her arrange the conference immediately following a meeting “between [the network executive] and an attorney closely associated with candidate Obama who was acting on his behalf.” The statement of a corporate secretary for a major news network confirming the existence of a one-page inter-office memo, bearing the markings “confidential” and “not for dissemination,” addressed and distributed to news anchors and on-air talent” that specifically instructed the recipients to avoid any discussion pertaining to the Obama birth certificate controversy. The memo was written and distributed in October 2008, and specifically instructed on-air talent to “advise guests, as necessary, to refrain from citing any news story, legal proceedings, Internet ‘blogs’ or other sources that pertain to the ongoing eligibility controversy of future President Barack Obama.” As outlined above, our Investigation has uncovered both direct and indirect evidence of threats being made against some of the nation’s top radio and television personalities, which would explain some giving this topic mere lip service. As one source interviewed during the course of this investigation stated, “I’ve got a career and family to think about.” Although no one should be surprised over the manipulation of the news, the nature of this manipulation, and the extent of the threats against journalists, should shock even the most well grounded. Any reasonable person must question the motivation of the media moguls. The individuals who have – and continue to threaten talk show hosts, news anchors, and others are the top people. We are not talking about mid or upper level management – this is from the very top in all cases. If there is nothing to the birth certificate issue and the question of eligibility, why the secrecy? Read: Does `King of the World’ need a birth certificate?

Page 113 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3
Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod Most recent columns
(83) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 114 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY
Printed from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

Copyright © Canada Free Press Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Older articles by Doug Hagmann Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. Judi and Doug can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com Older articles by Judi McLeod

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

EXHIBIT 16
http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

Canada Free Press - Printer Friendly Page
© V2.0 - CJ Website Design
www.cj-design.com

UN diplomatic immunity Does `King of the World’ need a birth certificate?
By Judi McLeod and Douglas Hagmann Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Judi McLeod and Douglas Hagmann Bio
Email Article

Photo Gallery
<a href="http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=18589&m=3&amp;c=2803" target="_blank"></a>

Since his arrival at the White House, Barack Obama has been touted as `King of the World’ rather than USA president.

As King of the World, does Obama really need born-in-USA status? On the occasion of their president’s 48th birthday yesterday, Americans still don’t know for certain from where he came, only where he is leading them. There was a mammoth picture of the Birthday Boy on display outside the White House, but no pictures of him pursing his lips to blow out the candles on a birthday cake, which may have served as a reminder that this is a president already well on his way to blowing out the lights of the Free World. Thus far the only `proof’ of Obama’s murky past comes from the romantic version of his life as spun in his book, Dreams of My Father. Some people’s dreams are other folk’s nightmares.

24 25 26
Page 115 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Global citizens and Kings of the World find home at the United Nations, which operates as a law unto itself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

When Obama emerges to his rightful throne as King of the World, will his missing birth certificate and school records be swallowed up by UN diplomatic immunity? The long-awaited debut of Obama at the UN is happening right on schedule. Obama will chair “a special meeting of the U.N, Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”. According to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, that meeting will take place on Sept. 24 during the annual summit of the U.N. General Assembly. There is no doubt that the sovereignty of the US, notwithstanding, the United Nations is a law unto itself. A pig sty of corruption, and a body that blows its time on incessant talk while people die in genocides, the UN is also the main source of this summer’s “you’re all going to die” pandemic predictions that have yet to lead to the public panic needed to invoke martial law. Most fittingly to some, UN headquarters originated on the grounds of an abattoir where screams of animals being led to slaughter could be heard, as a “gift” from Rockefeller family money. Diplomatic Immunity, which could only have originated at the UN, has created virtual untouchables. According to Reader’s Digest, “The UN rarely gets much done, but somehow its officials are still too busy to park legally. Between 1997 and the end of 2002, foreign diplomats racked up more than 150,000 unpaid parking tickets--totaling a staggering $17 million. But thanks to diplomatic immunity, the city has no power to collect. Is it a foregone conclusion that the UN granted Obama the unassailable right to be a law unto himself, with or without the personal documents proving who he really is? BHO began identifying himself as a “global citizen” even before election. Perhaps rather than coming off as grandiose, he was really telling the truth. UN-bestowed diplomatic immunity has protected other high rollers in the now all but forgotten Oil for Food Scandal. Some of those high rollers are now part of the Obama team of czars. Paul Volcker, charged by personal friend, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to investigate the scandal, only added to the level of frustration. UN Poster Boy numero uno, Canadian Maurice Strong who accepted a $1 million cheque courtesy of oil-for-food main player Saddam Hussein (although he contends he did know at the time the money came from Hussein) went on to invest in the Chery car company,

Page 116 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

stated intention of which was to bring America’s auto industry to its knees with the likes of Obama bagman George Soros. Soros has close ties to former UN Deputy Secretary General Baron Mark MallochBrown. Is Obama thumbing his nose at Americans who want to see his birth certificate because he knows his back is covered by UN diplomatic immunity? Is there a Grand Plan keeping the the most anti-American president ever elected in the White House? Barack Obama is a self-admitted global citizen who can do whatever he wants to America, and just like the organization which foments for One World Government that spawned him, is really a power until himself. Read:Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to November
(25) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 117 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Judi McLeod and Douglas Hagmann Most recent columns

Copyright © Canada Free Press Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. Judi and Doug can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com Older articles by Judi McLeod Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Older articles by Doug Hagmann

Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13403

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Posted: August 10, 2009 8:49 pm Eastern BORN IN THE USA?

EXHIBIT 17
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105904

What does 'natural born citizen' legally mean?
Debate whether British dad's baby meets constitutional requirement for president

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The months of arguments over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office – based on the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the chief executive be a "natural born" citizen – have been fueled both by the president's decision to withhold his original longPage 118 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

form birth certificate, thereby leaving some questions unanswered, and by arguments over just exactly what is a "natural born" citizen. Some argue that since Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and thus a British subject in 1961, his son's birth in Hawaii that year would have granted Obama dual British-U.S. citizenship. Obama's campaign website admitted as much prior to the election.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo, one of several lawyers filing lawsuits over Obama's eligibility to serve as president, believes the double claim on Obama's citizenship disqualifies him from fulfilling the requirement of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution, which states no person except a "natural born" citizen shall be eligible to the office of president.
"'Natural born citizen' status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens," Apuzzo asserts on his website. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty." According to Apuzzo, regardless of where Obama was born, regardless of whether he ever releases his long-form birth certificate, his father's citizenship status disqualifies him from being president. Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the questions over his birthplace by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate! Apuzzo's definition of "natural born," however, has its critics, even among those challenging Obama's eligibility on other grounds. "There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said the executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, Gary Kreep, whose lawsuit alleges Obama was born in Africa and thus is constitutionally ineligible. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural born citizen, period." Indeed, a consensus on the correct definition of "natural born citizen" has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution's failure to offer any definition of the phrase whatsoever, the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means. In trying to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase, some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day. According to the Constitution Society, "The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, "was read by many of the Founders of the United
Page 119 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

States of America and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787." Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his book, "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 than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Apuzzo also points to Vattel's work as the framework for the Founders' intent and the justification for requiring a president not only be born on American soil, but also to American parents. The first Congress, however, began clouding the issue only two years after the Constitution was ratified. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress passed a law that disregarded the idea of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Parker Shannon of the Obama File highlighted excerpts from the 1st U.S. Congress in his effort to demonstrate a natural born citizen must be the child of two U.S. citizens.

Page 120 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the Act and never again drafted a legally binding definition of "natural born citizen." Herb Titus, a one-time vice presidential candidate considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution, says it was probably the responsibility of the electors from the 50 states or members of Congress to make the determination whether President Obama is a "natural born" U.S. citizen. Congress does have the option of challenging the results of the election, but it was not used in the 2008 contest. Titus also said, however, the likely most important factor in the argument should be the president's loyalties. "The reason for the concept of natural born citizens is so a country can't just throw you out willy-nilly," Titus told WND. "Your citizenship is in God's sovereign decisionmaking. You were born of certain parents. "If you follow that kind of reasoning, Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen, even if he's born in Hawaii," because of his parents, he said. "One was Kenyan and one American." Furthermore, if the Founders wrote "natural born citizen" to ensure a candidate's loyalty, Titus suggested, Obama's dual citizenship would create a dilemma: Citing Obama's major writing work, "Dreams From my Father," Titus asked, "Did he write a book about his [American] mother?" John Eidsmoe, another recognized authority on the U.S. Constitution, said the circumstances are a little complicated, but not unclear. If a baby was born to U.S. citizens in the U.S., there would be no question of being a "natural born" citizen, he said. For a baby born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizens, likewise. But being born in the U.S. to non-citizens, Eidsmore said, doesn't count. "If he was born outside the U.S. to one citizen and one non-citizen, particularly the father, it is very doubtful that he qualifies for 'natural born' citizenship," said Eidsmoe, who works with former Judge Roy Moore's Foundation for Moral Law. Eidsmoe said in many circumstances the citizenship follows the father.

22 23 24 25 26
Page 121 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

"My conclusion if Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya, he is in all probability not a 'natural born' citizen," he said. A commentary on the Federalist Blog wrote that an early definition of "natural born" citizen was never produced because one of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

wrote that a citizen of a state was a citizen of the union, "thus, no act of Congress was required …" That would mean only states can determine "natural born" status. But the same commentary pointed out that if being born on U.S. soil alone was enough, there would have been no need to reference "natural born." Instead, the "native born" reference would have been sufficient. The commentary argued for citizenship inherited from a father. "Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to fathers who are themselves citizens of the United States," it said. James Taranto, writing at the Wall Street Journal, said Obama's place of birth is important, unlike what some Obama supporters have proclaimed – but it isn't important because of his American mother. Citing the U.S. State Department, he writes: "A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child)." "Obama was born before 1986 to married parents, and his father was an alien," Taranto wrote. "Thus if it were an overseas birth, his mother would have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 in order for her child to be a natural-born American. Mrs. Obama was only 18 when Barack was born, so she had not even lived 5 years after age 14." But, he said, Obama already has documented his birth, with the release of the online "Certification of Live Birth." The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, has admitted the Constitution does not define what is meant by "natural born citizen" and hasn't offered a ruling to solve the dispute. "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that," wrote the Court in the 1874 Minor v. Happersett case. "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
Page 122 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

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." Through history, different scholars and officials have offered up their opinions, which have varied widely. In 1862, Attorney General Edward Bates wrote a 27-page opinion paper to answer whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States, and in the process threw out the issue of parentage altogether in the "natural born" debate, requiring only birth on American soil. "Our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens," Bates writes, "recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic." Even recently, the issue reared its head again when Congress questioned whether John McCain, who was born to two American parents, but in the Panama Canal Zone, qualified as a natural born citizen. Ted Olson, the former solicitor general under Bush, told NBC News, "Although I am continuing to research the matter, there is little doubt in my mind that Senator McCain fully meets the Constitution's qualifications to be President of the United States. In my view, the plain meaning of 'natural born citizen' includes persons who become citizens of this nation 'naturally,' that is by virtue of their birth to parents who are citizens." But Jill Pryor, who 20 years previously wrote in the Yale Law Journal about the "Natural Born Enigma," told NBC, "Whether a person born abroad of American parents ... qualifies as natural born has never been resolved. … Some have taken the view that 'natural born' means native born, that is, born in the United States, and there is no authority expressly to the contrary." Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University, also warned the question is "not so simple." She told the Washington Post the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision. "The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin told the Post. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue."

Page 123 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing S. Res. 511, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." S. Res. 511 took the position two American parents qualify a child as natural born regardless of the soil of birth, but the resolution is neither a legally binding document nor an amendment to the Constitution. Notably, the Senate did not address Barack Obama's natural born citizen status. Peter J. Spiro, professor of law at Temple University and author of "Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization," argues in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer that the whole controversy ought to just be thrown out to allow any American citizen – whether natural born or native born or even naturalized – to be president. "The natural-born provision is an artifact of a time when one's birthplace was fraught with consequences," Spiro writes. "In the feudal conception of natural law, one was born into the protection of a territory's sovereign, for which one was thought to owe an indissoluble duty of allegiance. The Framers of the Constitution worked in an era when such bonds were taken seriously. It made sense, then, to protect against a sleeper at the top. "Today, birthplace is hardly so meaningful," Spiro writes. But to many Americans, including Apuzzo, Kreep, and the several attorneys representing dozens of clients demanding the American president meet the constitutional requirements to serve, birthplace – and, for some, birth parentage – is extremely important. "The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue," Apuzzo writes. "It is the 'natural born citizen' clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. "American people do not have the constitutional right to have any certain person be president," he continues. "But … they do have a constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their president is constitutionally eligible and qualified." Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Drew Zahn, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.

Page 124 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 18
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm

The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen
and the clear and compelling evidence that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen.

What is a Citizen?
Before defining what a natural born citizen is and how one acquires this status, it is important to understand what a generic citizen is and why a country bestows citizenship upon the members of a society. A citizen is a member of a particular nation who has been given certain rights, privileges, and immunities that are not given to people of other nations. Such rights include voting in elections, receiving a passport, and in some countries can include owning property. A privilege nations extend to citizens is holding elected office and some countries extend immunities to their citizens by preventing them from being extradited to face criminal charges in other countries. Countries do not extend citizenship solely to grant rights, privileges and immunities to people. Citizenship is granted with the expectation of allegiance given to the country bestowing the benefits of citizenship. Countries demand that this allegiance be observed by its citizens and also impose obligations both civil and military. In times of crisis, nations need to draw upon its citizens to establish a loyal force to defend its borders and claims. In all times, nations, use the taxation of its citizens, both individuals and corporations to insure its treasury is adequately funded to meet its needs. These obligations are duties that its citizens must fulfill and that it cannot impose upon aliens and foreigners. The most basic definition of a citizen is one who is a member of a particular nation and is entitled to receive rights, privileges and immunities from that particular nation that are not bestowed upon people of other nations in exchange for their allegiance in performing certain obligations not expected of people of other nations when called upon to do so. Merriam Webster dictionary defines a citizen as “a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state.”

Page 125 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Black’s Law dictionary defines a citizen as “a person who owes allegiance to, and may claim reciprocal protection from, a government.”

The Current Methods of Becoming a US Citizen
Throughout the history of the United States of America there have been only three major classes of citizens: original, naturalized and born. On April 19, 1775, the United States of America entered into armed revolt against the tyrannical rule of the English King. On that date, these freedom fighters ceased being subjects of Great Britain and became Americans. July 4, 1776 was merely the date when the second Continental Congress declared to the world its intentions that had already been manifested on the battlefields. From April 19, 1775 until September 17, 1787, those that remained or who came to the 13 original states and who were naturalized by the laws of those states during that time were classified as original citizens in the Constitution. This classification of citizenship no longer exists in the present day United States. A naturalized citizen is a very specific class of citizen whose existence is defined in our Constitution and laws. Naturalization is the process by which aliens declare their intent to be a member of the United States. Setting forth the rules of naturalization is a constitutional function of Congress under Article I. Since 1790, the Congress has enacted naturalization laws, which determine how a foreign national transforms into a national of the United States. A naturalized citizen is equal to in status as any other class of citizen except those of the natural born citizen class, and only for the expressed purpose of Article II, Section1. The last method and the most common way to become an American citizen is simply to be born a citizen. The United States has always had two principles that determine if a person is born a citizen of the United States. … the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). From the office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Historically jus sanguinis is the oldest principle used to determine citizenship. It was so prior to the Fourteenth Amendment in the majority of the states when the States themselves were sovereign and created the rules to determine who was a born citizen of that State and by extension of the Nation. Some States extended citizenship to people born within those States (jus soli), while other States granted citizenship to the children of citizens of those States (jus sanguinis.) Each State placed restrictions upon who could be granted citizenship based upon birth. These restrictions were based upon one’s status and race. Some states discriminated against the race of a person, other states discriminated against one’s status as a freeman, bondservant or slave regardless of race, and some states restricted citizenship based upon a combination of both statuses.
Page 126 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The term jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens and jus soli describes a person born in the country. Persons who are born only under the principle of jus sanguinis are called a “consanguineously born citizens,” and their claim of citizenship is based on inheritance. . On the other hand persons who claims their citizenship based solely on the principle of jus soli are called “native born citizens” and these persons’ claims are based on the geographical location of their birth. Both principles are equal in making one a born citizen. Being a born citizen extends to them one particular immunity not given to naturalized citizens, in that born citizens are immune from involuntarily renouncing their citizenship. A naturalized citizen can have his citizenship revoked for several reasons, but under current law, born citizens must walk into a US Embassy abroad and in front of the Consul renounce their citizenship. The only two methods of obtaining US citizenship today are defined as Naturalization and Birth. Of the birth method of obtaining citizenship there are two principles recognized under our law. These are jus soli, which is based on the place of birth, and jus sanguinis which is based on the parents. We are now able to refer to the Euler diagram below called “Methods of Citizenship” in determining the ways to be considered a US citizen today. (If you are unfamiliar with Euler diagrams, the large circle and the space not occupied by either naturalized or born citizens does not indicate that there is any other type of citizen. The large circle is used to collect the two methods of becoming US citizens in one location called US Citizen so to separate them from other citizens such as a citizen of the world or a citizen of Rome.)

Page 127 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Methods of Citizenship

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 128 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

From this diagram, we are able to make nine logical statements concerning general citizenship in the United States. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States. All born citizens are citizens of the United States. All born citizens are not naturalized citizens. All naturalized citizens are not born citizens. All Born citizens under the principle of jus soli are citizens of the United States.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

6. All born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis are citizens of the United States 7. All born citizens under both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis are citizens of the United States. 8. Not all born citizens under the principle of jus soli are born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis. (i.e. children born in the US to alien parents) 9. Not all born citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis are born citizens under the principle of jus soli. (i.e. children born to US parents overseas)

The Reason for a “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution
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 shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. Article II, Section 1 Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. John Jay, July 25, 1787 To understand whom the future Chief Justice John Jay wanted to exclude from being Commander in Chief we need to examine the definition of Foreigner. Using the three most authoritative dictionaries, we can see who should be excluded and for what reason. We can then start to arrive at a definition of a “natural born citizen,” that meets this requirement. MerriamWebster Dictionary - “a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country.” Oxford English Dictionary – “One who is a subject of another country than that in which he resides. A resident foreign in origin and not naturalized, whose allegiance is thus due to a foreign state.” Blacks Law Dictionary - “A person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country in which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign”

Page 129 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

What all of these definitions have in common with the word citizen is allegiance. The target of the allegiance is different between a foreigner and a citizen. Since the reason for this prohibition of the admission of Foreigners into the office of Commander in Chief, is to prevent the military from being used by non-American powers against the Republic. Jay recommended and the framers agreed that this person must have a natural allegiance that is total and absolute to the Nation and to no any other nation or potentate. We can look at the citizenship types from the diagram above and make some logical statements of both methods (naturalized and born) of being a citizen in light of allegiance. These statements are made with reliance on generally known and accepted facts. Naturalized Citizens are not considered for President because of the following observations that could allow the admission of Foreigners into the Administration holding the post of Commander in Chief. 1. All naturalized citizens were citizens of another country at one point before naturalization. 2. All naturalized citizens renounce the former allegiances and take an oath of allegiance to the United States, but not all naturalized citizens are honest taking the oath of allegiance. a. Some countries send their nationals into a targeted country to become citizens for the purpose of facilitating the affairs of their country of origin. These “citizens” are not acting as registered agents of their former countries, but are acting as de facto spies for that country. However, because they took the oath of allegiance they are not considered enemy agents or spies they are considered traitors. This does not mean that all naturalized citizens are disloyal or have ulterior motives for coming to America. It simply means that allowing naturalized citizens to be President opens the possibility of a Foreigner acting under foreign influence. It is understood by the vast majority of American citizens that naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President of the United States and further discussion of this method of becoming a citizen is not necessary. At this point discussion will be based solely on the method of citizenship called Born Citizen. As stated above there are two legal principles at work in determining if one is a born citizen. Refer to the Euler diagram below called “Principles of Born Citizenship”

Page 130 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 131 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY
Principles of Born Citizenship

Not all Born Citizens are considered for President because of the following observations that could allow the admission of Foreigners into the Administration holding the post of Commander in Chief. 1. All born citizens owe allegiance to the United States. 2. Not all born citizens under jus soli have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners. a. Some born citizens, especially those born to alien parents inherit citizenship via jus sanguinis from their parents’ native countries. i. It is possible for a born citizen US citizen to be born with citizenship in three distinct countries. These citizenships can come from the country of birth via jus soli, and the country of the father and the country of the mother via jus sanguinis. 3. Not all born citizens under jus sanguinis have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners. a. Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship in the country of birth via jus soli. b. Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship from a non-US citizen parent via jus sanguinis.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

4. All born citizens under both jus soli and jus sanguinis from both US citizen parents have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, their allegiance cannot be claimed by another country. a. No other country can grant citizenship via jus soli. b. No other country can grant citizenship via jus sanguinis. i. Naturalized citizen parents have renounced their former citizenships to become naturalized American citizens and can no longer pass on jus sanguinis citizenship of their former country as an automatic birthright. We can now say with certainty that the term “a natural born citizen” is a person who is born owing to only one country his or her complete and undivided national allegiance. It is only to this individual that the Constitution of the United States of America entrusts the office of President and the responsibilities of Commander in Chief to, there is no other. A natural born citizen is a refining subset of that group of citizens called born citizens. Refer to figure labeled, “The Unification Principles of Natural Born Citizen.“

The Unification Principles of Natural Born Citizen

Page 132 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, there was one and only one definition that combined both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis into a definition of natural born citizen. “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its 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 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, 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, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Emmerich Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives Vattel’s definition of what a natural born citizen is was first codified into American Common Law in the Supreme Court decision of THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814) “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’" This definition was echoed by Congressman John A. Bingham, who is considered the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the congressman said this concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866, this definition was not replaced by the Fourteenth Amendment. “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction
Page 133 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 This definition has been again codified into American Common Law through the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Unanimous opinion of the court. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) The definition of a natural born citizen written by Vattel and recounted by both Congressman Bingham and the Supreme Court, was what the Framers of the Constitution wanted when the wrote and ratified Article II, Section 1. There can be no other definition that provides the strong check that John Jay urged Washington to incorporate into the Constitution to guard against those who could have allegiances to a foreign power from being Commander and Chief of our armed forces. Until we as a nation change the Constitution this is the only standard we can use to call someone an Article II natural born citizen. Using available material the Framers of Constitution and the architects of Article II, section 1 had on hand, authoritative statements made by one of the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court decisions both before and after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, allows us to create a natural born citizen matrix.

Page 134 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 135 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The Fourteenth Amendment does not make one born in the United States “a natural born citizen,” it only makes them a “born citizen.”
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to insure that no state could or would deprive the newly freed slaves or their children the rights of citizenship. This can be seen in the remaining text of Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2 This Amendment did not nor does it alter the principle of jus sanguinis. The principle of jus sanguinis has been established by the States before the Constitution and codified into national law since 1790. The freed slaves were not US citizens at the time they were freed and could not have passed US Citizenship to their children. This amendment extended the principle of jus soli uniformly across the nation, hence the term ‘born … in the United States’ appears in the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The plain words of this section cannot be ignored. There is no term “natural born” anywhere to be found. The reason it is not found is because there are the two methods of citizenship that are joined by a logical ‘or,’ which treats both methods as being equal. What they are equal to is the most generic term citizen. This is the one concept all American citizens share, whether we are a naturalized citizen, a born citizen under the principle of jus soli, a born citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis, or a natural born citizen under both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis, we are all citizens of the United States. The most disputed term in the Fourteenth Amendment is the term, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ From the civil rights act we find the words, “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” We can clearly see that just two years later the phrase, “not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” was replaced with the phrase, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Clearly this did not change the essence of meaning, as the most complete and reliable definition we have closest to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is from Senator Lyman Trumbull, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was instrumental in drafting the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull clearly and succinctly states the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States." It is not our intention to expand this paper into other current topics, the explanation of “subject to the jurisdiction” is only to reinforce the fact that at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment the general sentiment was that US citizenship carried with it a complete allegiance to the United States. The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ has been interpreted differently then what the Amendments architects originally said in the case of Wong Kim Ark. This is a landmark case in citizenship. It is not our intention to take this into the topic of immigration; however it is necessary to examine this decision as it relates to the specifics of a natural born citizen. There is one statement in the decision of Wong Kim Ark that seems to add unnecessary confusion to the term a “natural born citizen.” “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." Justice Horace Gray Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) There are historical factors that need explanation. But first let’s simply look at the logic of what Justice Gray is saying. He is saying the principle (singular) that both a native born and natural born share is the same. We know that a “natural born citizen” is a citizen that has two principles to claim citizenship with, jus soli and jus sanguinis. On the other hand, a “native born citizen” has to satisfy only one principle, jus soli to be granted
Page 136 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

citizenship. It is the principle of jus soli that is the same principle that a “natural born citizen” shares with a “native born citizen” in making them a citizen of the United States, so what Justice Gray stated is correct. This is proven by applying the same statement to a born citizen born overseas by a citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis. If Justice Gray had said, “The child of a citizen, if born out the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle" this would hold true, but the singular principle would not have been jus soli, but rather jus sanguinis. See diagram “Shared principles of born citizens and natural born citizen.”

Shared principles of born citizens and natural born citizen

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 137 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The historical factors that need to be considered at the time of Justice Gray’s opinion are, the right to confer the birthright principle of jus sanguinis was limited to the father. This right was not extended to women until 1934 and was upheld as late as 1961 in the case of Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308). Therefore, the citizen parent that Justice Gray is speaking of is the father. The law in effect at that time of his ruling, Revised Statutes of 1878, also gave the mother instant citizenship if she were an alien married to a US citizen, making both parents US citizens. This decision has not altered the integrity or meaning of the definitions of a natural born citizen from Vattel, Congressman Bingham remarks or the Minor v. Happersett decision concerning the necessity of parents plural for conferring upon a native-born citizen the status of natural born citizen. It is also obvious that from the accepted law and definition of a natural born citizen at the time of the ruling, Wong Kim Ark would never qualify as natural born citizen and future concerns about Article II, Section 1 were never addressed by the Court as these concerns were not germane to the issue in front of the court, which was general citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. We can now update our original Euler diagram to include natural born citizens as a proper subset of Born Citizens.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 138 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

How does this effect Barack Hussein Obama, II and his sworn declaration of being a natural born citizen?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Primarily is the issue of the Certificate of Live Birth that Barack Hussein Obama, II is secreting from the American public is of major concern because it deprives the public of the information needed to determine if he is telling the truth, or lying about his natural born citizen status. Unlike the COLB, which is short hand for Certification of Live Birth, the Certificate of Live Birth has the necessary information to either quickly determine the natural born status of the child or can easily point to further documentation needed to conclude this determination. The key pieces of information contained in the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth are the place of birth of the child and the place of birth for both parents. (See photo called Hawaiian Long Form from August 5, 1961) If either the father or mother were born overseas, then the next piece of evidence required to validate the “natural born citizen” claim would be proof of American citizenship of the parents of the parent born overseas. This can be either in the form of a naturalization certificate or birth certificates of the parents of the parent born overseas proving they were able to transfer jus sanguinis, birthright citizenship to the parent of the child requiring confirmation of his

or her claim. Hawaiian Long Form from August 5, 1961

24 25 26
Page 139 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Putting aside the issue of what constitutes a legal Certificate of Live Birth for proving natural born status under Article II, Section 1. If we take the information found in Barack Hussein Obama, II’s “Fight the Smears” website we discover the following Obama is claiming to be a native citizen of the United States of America. This means he is claiming a status of ‘a Born Citizen’ under the principle of jus soli. It is interesting to note that he is not claiming a natural born status, as required by Article II. Leave it as it is for now. On the same page, we see from FactCheck.org, Barack Hussein Obama, II admitting his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Furthermore the cite states that his birth was governed by the British government through the British Nationality Act of 1948.

This Act conferred the title of British subject upon Barack Hussein Obama, II. Under Section 5 of this Act, citizenship is passed from father to child.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 140 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

5. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth: Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or Note: Barack Hussien Obama, Sr. was in fact born in Kenya a British Protectorate and crown colony. At one time Hawaii was a British Protectorate, (1794–1843), in which the British Crown had jurisdiction of British Subjects. If you have any doubts please look at the flag of Hawaii. Either of these provisions fulfills the requirements of subsection 5 of the British Nationality Act. Regardless if his birthplace was Kenya or Hawaii Barack Hussein Obama, II is a British Subject. His father’s birth was in a British Colony or his birth if in Hawaii which was at one time a British Protectorate. (b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or Note: While subparagraph (a) makes this irrelevant, we have had neither a statement from Obama, II stating this option was not exercised, nor do we have independent confirmation from an authoritative source denying this. Using the information contained on his website, we can accurately produce a natural born citizen matrix for him to see if he is in fact an Article II, natural born citizen.

Using both the law and logic it can now clearly be seen that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen as required to hold the office of President of the United states of

Page 141 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

America and be the Commander in Chief of its armies as required under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. He does not meet the full and complete description of a “natural born citizen,” which is a citizen who has unity of citizenship at birth to one and only one country via by both Jus soli (place) and Jus sanguinis (the parents,) who is born in the country to two citizens of the country. Such a citizen can only have his allegiance claimed by one country. A natural born citizen cannot evade civic or military obligations by repatriating himself or herself to another country since a natural born citizen does not have dual or multiple citizenships by birth. A natural born citizen who gives his or her allegiance to another country during a time of war cannot justify it by saying he or she is a spy or a patriot for some other country for which he or she also has citizenship via birth. Such a person is simply a traitor to his or her natural born country. Obama’s refusal to release his long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii, his manipulation of facts, his own statements can only lead a reasonable person to believe that he intentionally has lead the United States of America into a Constitutional Crisis. However, this can now be resolved by the state court of the State of Arizona, if there is one sheriff, one prosecutor, one judge, one state representative loyal to the Constitution, because on December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

Page 142 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 143 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The question now is can America find one honest public servant in Arizona who believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution. If we can find officers of the court loyal to the Constitution then Chris Matthews will really get a tingle up his leg when he sees Obama in the pink underwear issued to him by Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen of the USA!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EXHIBIT 19
http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/Obama_birth_certificate/2009/08/05/244380.html

Christopher Ruddy

Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate: Why It Matters
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3:54 PM Article Font Size

9
By: Christopher Ruddy

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 But the real story here is about Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate. 24 25 26
Page 144 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Where was Barack Obama born? It’s a fair question. But we still don’t know the answer because Obama won’t tell us, because he remains the most mysterious man ever to sit in the Oval Office. This week I appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s No. 1 rated “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, along with syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher. [See the video of my appearance — Click Here Now.] Let me make clear that I believe Obama was born somewhere in the state of Hawaii. Days after his birth, a small legal notice was printed in the local newspaper announcing his birth. And the head of Hawaii's Health Department has stated that he reviewed pertinent documents and that Obama was indeed born in that state. So, those who believe Obama was born outside the United States, such as in Kenya, are simply out to lunch.

As the state of Hawaii has made clear, the actual birth certificate has never been

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

released. Obama has released another document, the certification of live birth. This document does not provide basic information, such as the place of Obama’s birth or the doctor who conducted the procedure. My brother Dan, a presidential historian who has a book coming out next year on Theodore Roosevelt, pointed out to me how rare Obama is among presidents. He says we have no idea of his birthplace. Dan notes that, of our unbroken line of 43 men who have served as president, only Zachary Taylor and Andrew Jackson, both born on the frontier, have disputed birth sites. All others have some commemoration for their place of birth — except Obama. In Manhattan, you can stroll down to 28 E. 20th St., between Park Avenue South and Broadway, and visit the quaint brownstone that Theodore Roosevelt was born and raised in. For Obama there is no plaque, nothing. (His family has given two different hospitals in Hawaii he was alleged to have been born in.) We should know where our president was born. There is nothing conspiratorial in having an answer to that question. President Obama is no longer a private citizen. He is part of a chain of history that stretches back to George Washington. His birth site is just as relevant as those of the 42 men who came before him, and if these sites are not relevant, than why do we as a nation go out of our way to commemorate all of them? When I asked Bill O’Reilly where in Honolulu Obama was born, he replied: “Chris, if I wanted to know I’d find out tomorrow . . .” Good luck, Bill. The Obama White House is the most secretive ever. Since Obama announced his candidacy, much of his life has been shrouded in secrecy. He still has never released his college transcripts, his records as a state legislator in Illinois, his full medical records, even the names of donors who reportedly contributed hundreds of millions of dollars that helped make him president.

Page 145 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

In the past, the disclosure of such documents has been de rigueur for presidential candidates. When Sen. John McCain was questioned about his birth outside the United States in the Panama Canal Zone, he released his birth certificate quickly. When McCain was questioned about his health, he released 1,500 pages of medical records. When questions arose about donations to his campaign, McCain put his full donor file, even names he didn’t have to disclose, online for anyone to see. So, let me be clear. The issue over Obama’s birth certificate is not about President Obama’s citizenship. It is about his honesty and his promise to be the most transparent president ever. Releasing his birth certificate and other personal records that presidents have traditionally released to the public would go a long way toward bolstering those claims. P.S. I am listing below all of our presidents and details of their places of birth. 1. George Washington — Address: George Washington Birthplace National Monument; Rural Route 1; Box 717; Washington's Birthplace, Va. 22443 2. John Adams — Address: 133 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02669

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 146 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

3.Thomas Jefferson — Address: U.S. 250; 3 miles east of Charlottesville, Va. 4. James Madison — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443 5.James Monroe — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443 6.John Quincy Adams — Address: 141 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02169 7.Andrew Jackson — Address: 14 miles south of Rock Hill on South Carolina State Route 5. The Park is on Route 1. Address:196 Andrew Jackson Park Road; Lancaster, S.C. 29720

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

8.Martin Van Buren — Address: 46 Hudson St.; Kinderhook, New York 12106 9.William Henry Harrison — Address: 12602 Harrison Landing Road; Charles City, Va. 23030 10. John Tyler — Address: John Tyler Memorial Highway; Charles City, Va. 23030 11. James Polk — Address: Box 475; Pineville, N.C. 28134 12. Zachary Taylor — Address: Highway 33; 5 miles west of Gordonsville, Va., and just over 20 miles from Charlottesville, Va. 13. Millard Fillmore — Address: Millard Fillmore Birthplace; Locke, N.Y. 13092 14. Franklin Pierce — Address: The Pierce Homestead; Routes 9 and 31; Hillsboro, N.H. 03244 15. James Buchanan — Address: Buchanan Historic Site; Mercersburg, Pa. 17236 16. Abraham Lincoln — Address: Sinking Spring Farm; 2995 Lincoln Farm Road; Hodgenville, Ky. 42748 17. Andrew Johnson — Address: Mordecai Historic Park; Wake Forest Road; Raleigh, N.C. 27601 18. Ulysses Grant — Address: Grant's Birthplace; Routes 52E and 322; Point Pleasant, Ohio 45143 19. Rutherford Hayes — Address: Rutherford B. Hayes Birthplace; East William Street; Delaware, Ohio 43015 20. James Garfield — Address: James A. Garfield Birthplace; 4350 S.O.M Center Road; Moreland Hills (now Chagrin Falls); Cuyahoga County, Ohio 44022 21. Chester Arthur — Address: Chester A. Arthur State Historic Site; Route 36; Fairfield, Vt. 05455 22. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006 23. Benjamin Harrison — Address: Benjamin Harrison Birthplace; William Henry Harrison Home; Symmes and Washington Avenues; North Bend, Ohio 45052

Page 147 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

24. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006 25. William McKinley — Address: William McKinley Birthplace; 36 S. Main St.; Niles, Ohio 44446 26. Theodore Roosevelt — Address: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site; 28 East 20th St.; New York, N.Y. 10003 27. William Taft — Address: 2038 Auburn Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 28. Woodrow Wilson — Address: 18-24 Coalter Street, Staunton, Va. 24401 29. Warren Harding — Address: Highways 97 and 288, Blooming Grove, Ohio 44878 30. Calvin Coolidge — Address: P.O. Box 247, Plymouth, Vermont 05056 31. Herbert Hoover — Address: West Branch, Iowa 52538 32. Franklin Roosevelt — Address: 519 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538 33. Harry Truman — Address: 1009 Truman Ave., Lamar, Mo. 64759 34. Dwight Eisenhower — Address: 208 East Day St., Denison, Texas 75020 35. John Kennedy — Address: 83 Beals St., Brookline, Mass. 02146 36. Lyndon Johnson — Address: Box 329 Johnson City, Texas 78636 37. Richard Nixon — Address: 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686 38. Gerald Ford — Address: 3202 Woolworth Ave, Omaha, Neb. 68103 39. James Carter — Address: 300 North Bond St., Plains, Ga. 31780

21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 148 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

40. Ronald Reagan — Address: 119 S. Main St., Tampico, Ill. 61283 41. George H.W. Bush — Address: 173 Adams St, Milton, Mass. 02187 42. Bill Clinton — Address: Bill Clinton was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Ark. The hospital has been demolished.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

43. George W. Bush — Address: George W. was born to Barbara and George Bush in what was then Grace-New Haven Community Hospital and is now Yale-New Haven Hospital. 44. Barack Obama — Address: Unknown. © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved

Page 149 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4

EXHIBIT 20
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ap-issues-chester-arthur-propaganda-to-protect-obama/

Posted in Uncategorized on August 17, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

5
Leo Donofrio

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 150 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

AP Issues Chester Arthur Propaganda To Protect Obama.

Today the AP issued a story titled “Obama Birthplace Flap Evokes Arthur Debate”. The story makes an analogy between the Obama birth certificate issue and the controversy surrounding Chester Arthur’s birthplace. The story contains a lie. It states that Chester Arthur never publicly addressed the issue of Hinman’s allegations that he was born in Canada. But Arthur did specifically address these issues in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper. However, AP and MSNBC won’t tell you that because Arthur was caught lying about his parents heritage in those newspaper interviews. He was lying to cover up the fact that Hinman was correct – Chester Arthur was a British subject – but for a different reason than where he was born.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

AP and MSNBC forgot to mention that Chester Arthur’s father William didn’t become a naturalized citizen of the US until 1843 – 14 years after old Chester was born. This means that Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen since at the time of his birth he was a subject of Great Britain. These facts as to Chester Arthur’s failure to meet the Constitutional requirement were first reported at this blog back in December ‘08. Please see that report, Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth. No main stream media outlet has reported this historical discovery and as we can see by the AP piece today, objective reporting has been replaced by propaganda. AP reported as follows: Never addressed allegation Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, claiming he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant. He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.” Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, never publicly addressed the allegation. But Arthur did address the issue. In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows: “My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.” This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
Page 151 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman . It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site. AP just published a story that said Arthur never publicly addressed the issue and the stench of a propaganda lie fills the air. We are treading in very dangerous waters, America. History is being controlled by lies. “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future”. George Orwell.

Page 152 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 21
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthurconcealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH December 6, 2008 6:36 PM [I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ] I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843. Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life. He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it. We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year. How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Page 153 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen. Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise. He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President. CHESTER’S LIES The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.) “Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822. By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible. From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203: “…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was
Page 154 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3

claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.” Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 155 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows: “My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.” This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born. In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman . It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site. FATEFUL FACTS I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”. I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine from the Brooklyn public library. I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above. Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited. About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 156 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Leo, Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet? Greg I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history. Chester Arthur had something to hide. He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President. Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized. When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal. Is this the twilight zone?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President. Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start. Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means. Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth. And it’s no precedent to follow. Leo C. Donofrio COPYRIGHT 2008

Page 157 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 22
Interview between Senator Robert Bennett (Utah) and Citizen Journalist David Axe and Citizen Journalist “Chalice Jackson” (Internet name on Patriots Heart Network is Chalice Jackson) August 4th, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HDeBqaZXKg This interview is on the attached CD. You can also see it on the Patriot’s Heart Network at the U-Tube link above This interview gives recorded video and oral testimony that key Senior Senate Leaders seem to be unclear if Soetoro is a Natural Born Citizen.

Page 158 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 159 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

EXHIBIT 23
Interview between Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Citizen Journalist “Chalice Jackson” (Internet name on Patriots Heart Network is Chalice Jackson) Conducted on August 4th, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubQOmnex8g This interview is on the attached CD. You can also see it on the Patriot’s Heart Network at the U-Tube link above. This interview gives recorded video and oral testimony that key Senior Senate Leaders seem to be unclear if Soetoro is a Natural Born Citizen.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
© 2009 WorldNetDaily Posted: August 17, 2009 12:46 pm Eastern

EXHIBIT 24
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107163

BORN IN THE USA?

Obama's MySpace page: I'm 52 years old, not 48
Would place president's birth during time Hawaii was a territory

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

If President Obama were indeed born in Hawaii, was it while the islands were a territory of the United States? A new wrinkle in the dispute over his birth – and whether he is eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen – appeared today when Obama's official MySpace page declared his age is 52, thus placing his birth year at 1957 instead of 1961 as has been claimed.

Is President Obama's age 52? His MySpace page declares his age as 52, thus putting his birth year at 1957, two years before Hawaii achieved U.S. statehood.

That would mean he would have been born during the archipelago's time as a territory of the U.S., the islands' status from about 1900 until statehood in 1959. The birth year also conflicts with campaign and other White House information that have discussed his 48th birthday this month.

Page 160 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A screenshot of President Obama's MySpace page declares his age as 52, not 48 as has been claimed elsewhere.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 161 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

When one puts the words "MySpace" and "Barack Obama" into search engines such as Google, the top result indicates: "Official profile page for Barack Obama includes his blog, blurbs, news clips, videos and comments from his MySpace friends." A WND request to the White House for comment did not generate an immediate response. It was the Associated Press that reported on Aug. 4 Obama was having Senate Democrats to lunch because "it's the president's birthday and Chuck E. Cheese was booked." AP credited Obama with being the nation's third youngest president who turned 48 this month. Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, several times has raised the question over Obama's eligibility at White House news briefings – initially asking why the president didn't just release a copy of his original long-form birth certificate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, at first laughed at the idea, stating the "birth certificate" was on the Internet. That image, however, shows a "certification of live birth" which is not the same document and until recently wasn't even accepted as identification by the state of Hawaii for some of its programs. But a multitude of other records that also have not been released would shed light on the president's past, including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records. Even when a hospital in Honolulu started using an image of a letter purporting to be from Obama acknowledging the facility as his place of birth, the White House refused to confirm the validity of the letter. The dispute rages because Obama has not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospitalgenerated birth certificate which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports. Hawaiian law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document. WND has reported on the dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" – challenges that all have been confronted by attorneys acting on the president's behalf to keep his records sealed. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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." Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Page 162 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions. The key question in the dispute also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah. They are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

Page 163 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 25
http://www.myspace.com/barackobama

Photo Copy of Soetoro’s website which claims he is 52 vs 48.

Page 164 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 165 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY Posted: August 17, 2009 9:28 pm Eastern BORN IN THE USA?

EXHIBIT 26
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107200

Birth certificate fraud: It's been done before
FBI, Department of Justice have record of bribe scandal

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

How can an official certification of live birth be obtained if the person on the document wasn't born in the state or even in the country the document was issued? Actually, it's been done before. In 2004, following a long investigation by the FBI and Department of State, Jean Anderson, the former deputy registrar of the Hudson County, N.J., Office of Vital Statistics, pleaded guilty to taking money for falsifying county records. According to a Department of Justice news release, Anderson was paid to insert phony birth records for illegal aliens into the files at her county office. The immigrants, in turn, approached county window clerks Hudson County, N.J., Courthouse and requested copies of their birth certificates, after which the clerks looked to the files and, upon seeing the records Anderson had inserted, issued fraudulent birth certificates unknowingly. Federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS in February of 2004, resulting in the seizure of hundreds of suspect birth certificates listing birthplaces in Jersey City, N.J, when in fact, the individuals named were immigrants born outside the U.S. The recipients of the phony birth certificates weren't seeking to become president; they were merely seeking status as American citizens.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The New Jersey case, however, has been referenced in blogs since last year as reason for President Barack Obama to release his full, long-form birth certificate, rather than insisting the nation trust only in his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, a document that merely refers to the presence of another, unreleased document in Hawaii's files. If Obama were actually born out of the country, some skeptics of the president's eligibility to the office contend, but his parents wanted to ensure his American citizenship – no foresight into his future political aspirations needed – a simple payoff in Obama's birth year of 1961 could have generated fraudulent COLBs ever since. "It is deadly serious in this day and age when we have people like Anderson and her coconspirators making it possible for anyone to present themselves as lawful U.S. citizens when they are not," said U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie in 2004. "The possibilities run from the benign to the horrific." Anderson's case pointed to an extensive conspiracy of illegal immigration fraud that also resulted in guilty pleas from Nikhil Goswamy, who took money from immigrants seeking American citizenship, and Rajendra Bahadur, who supplied Anderson with the vital statistic information necessary to generate the phony birth records. Federal agents also arrested Iftikhar Ali Bhutta, a Pakistani national who purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children. According to the DOJ press release, Bhutta and his children utilized the false birth certificates to obtain U.S. passports, which they used to travel internationally. According to The Record, a newspaper in Hackensack, N.J., authorities raided the county's Office of Vital Statistics, seizing 100 boxes of birth certificates dating back to 1902. The paper also reported that the State Department announced in 2004 that Hudson County birth certificates would not be accepted as proof of citizenship in passport applications. Five years later, the federal government still does not accept birth certificates from Hudson County when applying for a U.S. passport. As WND has reported, an American citizen can usually obtain a passport with a longform birth certificate, but some state-issued short forms are not sufficient, and obtaining a passport with a Certificate of Live Birth such as the one purported to be Barack Obama's and posted online, officials told WND, can be "complicated." According to Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department, a document such as Obama's online COLB could be acceptable to prove U.S. citizenship for the purposes of getting a passport if it contains a certain number of components, such as time and date of birth, location and name.
Page 166 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Fuller also said birth certificates should reveal the location of the child's birth accurately, but he confirmed there are cases known where that has not happened. "There are some documents that say things that aren't true," Fuller said. "That's not what's supposed to happen." Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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." Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions. A key to the defenses presented by Obama supporters always has been the "Certification of Live Birth:"

Page 167 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 168 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY
Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"

The document contrasts with an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 169 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY
Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)

To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him. Obama's birth certificate is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Posted: August 16, 2009 7:20 pm Eastern BORN IN THE USA?

EXHIBIT 27
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106942

Obama mama: 6 lost months
No documented record of whereabouts, activity leading up to baby's birth in '61

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

John F. Kennedy was sworn into office. Roger Maris was hitting 61 home runs. The Berlin wall was erected. Much was happening in the first six months of 1961. But an extensive WND investigation into events leading up to the birth of Barack Obama, who would become America's first black president 47 years later, leaves many unanswered questions about the whereabouts and activities of the woman he claims as his mother. The timeline for Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, reveals an approximately six-and-a-half month interval in which there is no documentation for her Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Jr. whereabouts, from Jan. 31, 1961, when she concluded the fall term at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, until Aug. 19, 1961, when the University of Washington at Seattle documents she was enrolled for extension courses. Where was Dunham when she was pregnant with Obama, and what did she do?

Page 170 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Her pregnancy apparently was the one time in her life she withdrew from academic pursuits. Assuming Barack Obama Jr. was born Aug. 4, 1961, and the baby was full-term, Dunham quit the University of Hawaii when she was two months pregnant while her husband-to-be continued his studies at the same school without interruption. One explanation is that Dunham simply left to focus her energy and time on the coming baby, even though that seems inconsistent with the rapidity with which she returned to university studies, in a distant city, after the birth. That Dunham dropped out to be a housewife and mother would have represented a very traditional adaptation to what was in reality anything but a traditional marriage or subsequent career and motherhood. There are no travel or passport records available for Dunham, Barack Obama Sr. or President Obama, so determining whether Dunham remained in Hawaii during these undocumented months is difficult. Dunham quits University of Hawaii According to records provided WND by Stuart Lau, the registrar at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Dunham dropped out of the university at the end of the fall term 1960:

Page 171 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lau further documented that this term ended Jan. 31, 1961. From the documentary record, Barack Obama Sr. continued his studies at the university, even though Dunham dropped out at the end of the term in which they met, her first.

Questions over wedding date The only documentation for Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr. comes from divorce documents that list the marriage date as Feb. 2, 1961. No wedding certificate for the couple has ever been found or published. In his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," Obama wrote of his parents wedding: "There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard." The documentation for Barack Obama's birthday comes from the two different versions of the short-form Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, produced by the Obama campaign and separately by FactCheck.org., as well as from birth announcements published at the time by the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin newspapers. WND has previously reported that in response to a direct question, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of the short-form COLB or to tell WND which of the variations more resembled COLB documents typically issued by the department.
Page 172 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

WND has also reported that the birth notices printed by the two Honolulu newspapers in 1961 do not provide solid proof of a birth in Hawaii because of uncertainties over the policies and procedures that apparently were in use at the time. Even assuming the newspapers reported what they received from the vital records division of the Hawaii DOH, Hawaii law in 1961 specifically allowed "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given a short-form COLB. WND has documented that until state policies were changed after the report was published, the website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands stated clearly the COLB touted by the Obama campaign, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and a host of other Obama defenders, was not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program. Even determining the hospital of his birth has become a controversy, with the Obama family and supporters claiming two different facilities – and neither of those facilities willing to confirm. Websites supportive of Obama scrubbed references he was born in Queens Memorial Hospital after WND published a report documenting the White House had changed the story to claim he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center. WND has also reported Obama may be using his political action committee funds to pay more than $1.35 million to lawyers to stamp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans seeking the public release of his long-form birth certificate. The facts remain that while Obama and his supporters have made many photographs available from his childhood, key photographs are missing:

No photographs of Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr. have ever been published. No photographs have yet surfaced showing Dunham pregnant in 1961. No photographs have yet surfaced of the parents with Barack Obama Jr. at the hospital where he was born. No photographs have yet surfaced of the parents after the newly born infant was taken home.

• •

Problems with Obama's story

Page 173 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Until a long-form original birth certificate specifying important details, including the hospital where he was born and the attending physician, is made public and authenticated, Obama's place and date of birth must be considered as yet undocumented. The official story of his birth, as presented in "Dreams from My Father" and in various accounts in newspapers and supportive websites conveys a very different timeline than a careful analysis of the available documentary evidence.

The documentary evidence establishes that Dunham left Hawaii when she moved to Seattle in August 1961 to begin her studies at the University of Washington, only 15 days after the birth of Barack Obama Jr. In contrast, the official story is that Dunham did not relocate to Seattle until late 1962. The documentary evidence also establishes Dunham abandoned her husband when she left to begin school at the University of Washington in August 1961, never again to live with Barack Obama Sr. as husband and wife. In contrast, the official story is that Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. lived together as a married couple in Hawaii until Barack Obama Sr. departed for Harvard to begin the fall term in September 1962.

The repositioning of Dunham's attendance at the University of Washington and the date she left a matrimonial home with Barack Obama Sr. appears to have been designed to mask a secret that lies at the heart of the Obama birth certificate controversy. Obama's mother resurfaces in Seattle Dunham's transcript from the University of Washington documents she was enrolled for two extension courses beginning Aug. 19, 1961:

Page 174 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 175 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

The University of Washington has documented to WND that the summer quarter 1961 ended Aug. 18. Fall quarter classes on campus began Sept. 25, 1961, with the university communicating to WND that Dunham's transcript reveals extension courses that appeared to involve a combination of independent study and night courses. As WND has also reported, the evidence that Dunham was in Seattle in August 1961 comes from three sources:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The public records division of the University of Washington has e-mailed WND that: "Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for: Autumn 1961, Winter 1962, Spring 1962."

Mary Toutonghi, the babysitter for Barack Obama Jr., told WND she babysat for Obama when he was 7 months old (around February/March 1962) and Dunham was attending night classes at the University of Washington that started around 4:30 in the afternoon.

The Polk 1961-1962 directory listed Dunham at a Capitol Hill address in Seattle.

The Obama "mama" timeline A timeline based on the documented evidence shows the six-month gap between Dunham's departure from the University of Hawaii Jan. 31, 1961, and her commencement of studies at the University of Washington Aug. 19, 1961.

Page 176 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LEO DONFRIO’S WEBSITE

EXHIBIT 27
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/scotus-in-wong-kim-ark-and-minor-v-happersett-rightfully-punted-on-naturalborn-citizen-current-court-purposely-fumbled/

Natural Born Citizen

8
« THE MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES – OBAMA HAS A TWIN

9
Liberty Bell Open Chess and Obama »

10 11 12 13 14 15 [UPDATE 5:08 PM Rewritten. Changes in purple.] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 177 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” -…(snipped by Ed. 03.03.09) [UPDATE: 03.03.09 Apologies in light blue.]

They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball and get hit. [I apologize to the Honorable Court for making the above statement. The statement was an emotional response not grounded in facts or law. 03.03.09] I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case. Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this. Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October. I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit. I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue. [Same apology as above.]

1 2 3

As I’ve stated in comments to my last blog (which was satire people), you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court. You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards. [Same apology as above.]

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 178 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

But, out of respect for Steve’s effort and the overall confusion this case has caused on the natural born citizen issue, I’ve written the following explanation thereto in the hope that the current court will receive no historical cover from Wong Kim Ark as none is due. In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark: ” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” (Emphasis added.) Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc . In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“ [UPDATE: 12:11 PM ...(thanks to reader "rossalgondamer" for pointing out the following). The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a " natural born citizen" - as I've stated in the original post here - but the reader points out that the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a "citizen" at all.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I will add to the reader's comment by pointing out that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor, but Minor doesn't really support the holding in Wong Kim Ark, it's just that Gray's opinion makes it look like it does. US History desperately needs to consider whether Justice Gray's appointment by Chester Arthur infected the opinion he wrote in Wong Kim Ark, since that opinion looks more and more dodgy every day in that it has the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur's citizenship problems as to POTUS eligibility since his father was not naturalized until Chester was 14, as we recently discovered, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth, just like Obama. ] For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of whether each person was a “citizen”. But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor. And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”. There’s a clear distinction made in the Wong Kim Ark case between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”. Justice Gray’s majority opinion said Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen” but went no further than that. He cleverly evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen” although a lazy reader of the case might come away with the wrong impression. (Intentional?) Since Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, they were able to punt: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.) They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.

Page 179 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I have stated over and again that the Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t. And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”, or, as the Court in Minor discussed, whether such persons are even “citizens”. Certainly, since Minor came down in 1873 and the Supreme Court then refused to confirm or deny whether persons born in the US to foreign parents were even citizens, then at the time Chester Arthur ran for Vice President in 1880, the issue of whether he was even a citizen was in doubt. The issue of whether he was a “natural born citizen” therefore leaves no doubt. He wasn’t, and either is Obama. But this isn’t the same United States. Back then we had a Constitution. Now we don’t. Those “doubts” mentioned in Minor needed to be discussed and adjudicated by the current supreme court. But they didn’t have the right stuff to take the issue on. And that makes them neither supreme nor even willing to live up to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. [Same apology as above.] Shame on them. Shame on this court who lacked the courage to do their job by taking on this tough issue and having it out in open court. Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied. Instead of respecting the citizens who took time, money and risk to bring these actions, those citizens were subjected to the most bizarre clerical behavior this lawyer of seventeen years has ever seen or could ever imagine. This current supreme court is a blasphemy to justice. They have no honor. They disgust me in every fiber of my being, a sick joke to a sick country in their silly robes and ruffles. [Same apology a above.] Neither Obama nor McCain was eligible. Calero was obviously not eligible having been removed from the ballots in five states. The Secretaries of several States claim no authority to remove names from ballots or to determine who is eligible to be President, but five of them did just that as to Calero. He

Page 180 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

was the official Socialist Workers Party candidate for President, but the party was forced to remove his name and substitute that of James Harris in five states. Is this just racism vs. Latin Americans or what? McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation. Calero was born in Nicaragua.

Word up. (See image above. Offensive image removed. same apology as above.)

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
• • •
What happens when private insurance companies cover only healthy people? ‘Natural-Born’ Killer? Mulling a Constitutional Amendment – Law… Sen. Feingold Questions Judge Sotomayor at Supreme Court Nomination Hearings

This entry was posted on December 19, 2008 at 9:45 am and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Page 181 – PETITION – FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful