This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Tracy A. Fair; Mary C. Miltenberger Plaintiffs, v. Robert L. Walker, Chairman of the Maryland State Board of Elections; Linda H. Lamone, State Administrator of Elections; John P. McDonough, Maryland Secretary of State; Jared DeMarinis, Director of the Candidacy and Campaign Finance Division, Maryland State Board of Elections; Defendants,
Case Number: 06-C-12-060692
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Tracy A. Fair (Pro Se) and Mary C. Miltenberger (Pro Se) bring this Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the above Defendants and charge them with malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty and in violation of their constitutional oath.
When I first filed my complaint, I originally charged Barack Obama, for signing a form swearing he was eligible, when he wasn’t. But after extensive research and finding out that the Board of Elections no longer requires the certificate of candidacy form, where candidates swear under oath that they are eligible, we feel the blame falls on those who were required to follow the law, when certifying a candidate to make sure he is eligible to be on the ballot. What these officials did, resulted in the Board having no signature on file, of Mr. Obama swearing that he is qualified, leaving no recourse against Mr. Obama. The actions taken to circumvent the sworn oath of Obama’s qualifications, combined with accepting a certificate of nomination in 2008 that omitted the constitution phrase, along with Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation on Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate, only shows that there is something seriously wrong here. There are several checks to avoid an ineligible candidate getting on the ballot and every last defendant, went around that check. The first check was Obama, who studied constitutional law and knew he was not eligible to run. Second, Nancy Pelosi in 2008, knew he wasn’t allowed to run, which is why she removed the constitutional clause from the certificate of nomination (exhibit #1). The Board has a check to certify the candidate by federal and state laws as well, which they also failed to do. Then the Secretary of State took an oath to the Constitution, which he did not abide by either, thereby illegally allowing Obama on the ballot. As Maryland and federal law requires, candidates for President must be natural born citizens and regardless of what laws the Board claims they follow, no law negates the United States
Constitution and all defendants took an oath to uphold that Constitution and laws thereof. From the Board of Election’s own website under Qualifications for filing Candidacy, the chart clearly states that the President and Vice President must be natural born citizens as opposed to all other offices, which only need to be citizens (exhibit #2). We have discussed this issue many times with the State Board of Elections and the Secretary of State’s Office and were told the only law they follow is EL 8-502, which allows the Secretary of State to certify an individual to be on the ballot, solely because he’s been advocated in the media, while disregarding all other federal and state laws on Presidential eligibility. There are many other federal and state laws that require an individual to be qualified for the office they seek and the defendants are not allowed to pick and choose the laws they wish to follow, in order to change the outcome of elections. Moreover, there is monumental amounts of “media” that does not advocate Obama, including the Kenyan Parliament’s recorded minutes, stating Obama is not a native American (exhibit #3) and Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation of Obama birth certificate, which shows it to be a forgery (exhibit #4). In filing this complaint we respectfully allege that: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. The acts of these individuals in concert, of willfully neglecting their official duties and suspending laws which are detriment to the security of this nation, has removed all checks on determining the legitimacy of the candidates and has resulted in a candidate for President of the United States, on the Democratic ticket in 2008 and 2012, who is not required to certify under oath that he is a natural born citizen and legitimately
meets the requirements under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Law. 2. That each and every defendant listed above has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and and must be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof, which allowed this to happen. We feel they must be censured and removed, for malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty and for violating their oath to uphold the US and Maryland Constitutions. 3. We feel the evidence proves beyond doubt that the citizens of Maryland have been deceived by the Maryland legislators into thinking that the U.S. Constitution is being upheld, when they purposely created a law to avoid their oaths of office and allow an impostor to be elected as U.S. President. This is the only time in the history of the United States, that Maryland has changed its election law to allow for this subversion of both the Constitution and Maryland law. However, even though Maryland laws have been changed to circumvent the requirement for presidential candidates to file a certificate of candidacy, the defendants must still adhere to all federal and state laws on presidential eligibility and any laws that are made contrary are notwithstanding under Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution. 4. Overwhelming evidence proves that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and was fraudulently allowed to be placed on the ballot by the defendants, even though he is not eligible under federal and state laws. PARTIES Plaintiffs, Tracy Fair of 19 W. Obrecht Rd., Sykesville, MD. 21784, 443-277-1708 and Mary Coffey Miltenberger of 14701 Smouse's Mill Rd., NE Cumberland. Md. 21502,
301-724-9110. Defendant, Chairman of the Maryland Board of Elections, Robert L. Walker of 151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Under Election Law Article, Title 2-102, the Board’s duties include managing and supervising elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process. His duties under EL 2-101 also include conforming to the restrictions specified under § 2-301, which states the individual may not use their official authority for the purpose of influencing or affecting the result of an election. It is also the Boards job to appoint a State Administrator. Defendant, Maryland State Administrator of Elections, Linda H. Lamone of 151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Linda has been the State Administrator for over 15 years, which could account for the relaxed rules at the Board of Elections. The State Administrator’s duties under EL 2-103 include performing all duties and exercise all powers that are assigned by law to the State Administrator or delegated by the State Board, including certifying candidates to be on the ballot for State elections. Defendant, Maryland Secretary of State, John P. McDonough of 16 Francis Street, Annapolis, MD 21401, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. The Secretary of State’s duties, during the Primary election, according to EL 8-502, include certifying presidential candidates, only by their being generally advocated or recognized in the news media and totally disregarding all other federal and state laws in relation to
presidential eligibility. Defendant, Director of the Candidacy and Campaign Finance Division of the Maryland State Board of Elections, Jared DeMarinis, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. According to the Board of Elections, I was told that Jared was in charge of certificates of candidacy and was directed to him every time I called. Jared told me several times on the phone that he follows one law when certifying presidential candidates and that he no longer requires them to file a certificate of candidacy. He claims he no longer needs the form where a candidate signs under oath, that they meet the requirement for that office. I asked Jared to put that in writing, but he refused. He did however write me a letter (exhibit #5), saying the Board of Elections follows all laws, which is obviously not true. JURISDICTION TITLE 9 - VOTING Subtitle 2 - Ballots After confirming with the Board of Elections of when they would be certifying candidates, I made sure to file within the 3 day time period, therefore this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Maryland Election Law 9-20 and 12-202 and according to the case below, must be expressed expeditiously. Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1031 We also recognize that some federal courts have adopted a per se rule with respect to the application of laches to claims arising out of elections, stating that “any claim against a state electoral procedure must be expressed expeditiously.”
VENUE According to Maryland State Government Code 10-125, any person can seek declaratory judgment on the validity of any regulation in the circuit court for the county where the petitioner resides. U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 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 VI Clause 2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Clause 3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 14th Amendment Section 1 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. 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. FEDERAL STATUTES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 Clause 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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;
MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Article 2 The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article 3 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof. Article 4 That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State. Article 6 That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Article 9 That no power of suspending Laws or the execution of Laws, unless by, or derived from the Legislature, ought to be exercised, or allowed. Article 16 That sanguinary Laws ought to be avoided as far as it is consistent with the safety of the State; and no Law to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter. Article 19 That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land. Article 20 That the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People. Article 44 That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.
MARYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 Section 7 - Laws to be passed for preservation of purity of elections The General Assembly shall pass Laws necessary for the preservation of the purity of Elections. Section 11 - Refusal to take oath; violation of oath Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, who shall refuse, or neglect, to take the oath, or affirmation of office, provided for in the ninth section of this Article, shall be considered as having refused to accept the said office; and a new election, or appointment, shall be made, as in case of refusal to accept, or resignation of an office; and any person violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State. MARYLAND STATUTES MARYLAND ELECTION LAW ARTICLE TITLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBTITLE 1. DEFINITIONS 1-101. Definitions (L) Candidate. -(1) "Candidate" means an individual who files a certificate of candidacy for a public or party office.
Subtitle 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1-201. Statement of purpose The intention of this article is that the conduct of elections should inspire public confidence and trust by assuring that: (1) all persons served by the election system are treated fairly and equitably; (3) those who administer elections are well-trained, that they serve both those who vote and those who seek votes, and that they put the public interest ahead of partisan interests; (7) the prevention of fraud and corruption is diligently pursued; and (8) any offenses that occur are prosecuted. TITLE 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE AND LOCAL BOARDS Subtitle 1. STATE BOARD 2-102. POWERS AND DUTIES (a) In general. -- The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process. 2-103. STATE ADMINISTRATOR (b) Specific powers and duties. -- The State Administrator shall: (5) perform all duties and exercise all powers that are assigned by law to the State Administrator or delegated by the State Board; (8) be the chief State election official. (c) Oath of office required. -- Before taking office, the appointee to the office of State Administrator shall take the oath required by Article I, § 9 of the Maryland Constitution.
Subtitle 3. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE 2-301. Bar to political activities (a) Applicability. -- This section applies to: (1) a member of the State Board; (3) the State Administrator; (4) an employee of the State Board or of a local board, including the election director of a board; (6) an election judge. (b) In general. -(1) An individual subject to this section may not, while holding the position: (ii) use the individual's official authority for the purpose of influencing or affecting the result of an election; TITLE 5. CANDIDATES Subtitle 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5-101. In general. (a) Applicability.—This subtitle governs the process by which an individual becomes a candidate for a public or party office in an election governed by this article. (b) Compliance required. —An individual’s name may not be placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters at an election unless the individual complies with the requirements of this title. Subtitle 2. QUALIFICATIONS § 5-201. In general.
An individual may become a candidate for a public or party office only if the individual satisfies the qualifications for that office established by law and, in the case of a party office, by party constitution or bylaws. Subtitle 3. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY 5-302. Filing (a) On form. -- A certificate of candidacy shall be filed under oath on the prescribed form. (b) Filing with State Board. -- The certificate of candidacy shall be filed with the State Board if the candidacy is for: (1) an office to be voted upon by the voters of the entire State; 5-304. Manner of filing. (c) Content. — On the certificate of candidacy form prescribed by the State Board, the candidate shall specify: Content. — On the certificate of candidacy form prescribed by the State Board, the candidate shall specify: (5) a statement that the individual satisfies the requirements of law for candidacy for the office for which the certificate is being filed; and (6) any information requested by the State Board to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the individual under this subsection. Subtitle 6. QUALIFICATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT 5-601. Candidates qualifying. The name of a candidate shall remain on the ballot and be submitted to the voters at a
primary election if: (1) the candidate has filed a certificate of candidacy in accordance with the requirements of § 5-301 of this title and has satisfied any other requirements of this article relating to the office for which the individual is a candidate, provided the candidate: (ii) has not died or become disqualified, and that fact is known to the applicable board by the deadline prescribed in § 5-504(b) of this title; (2) the candidate has qualified to have the candidate’s name submitted to the voters in a presidential primary election under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article. Subtitle 7. NOMINATION 5-705. Certificate of nomination or election after primary election. (a) In general. — A certificate of nomination that entitles a candidate for public office to have the candidate’s name listed on the general election ballot and submitted to the voters at the general election shall be issued in accordance with this section. (b) Issuance of certificates of nomination. — (1) The State Board shall issue a certificate of nomination to each candidate who files a certificate of candidacy with the State Board and Who qualifies for the nomination. TITLE 8. ELECTIONS Subtitle 2. PRIMARY ELECTIONS 8-203. Certification of candidates. (a) In general. — Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in accordance with Title 9, Subtitle 2 of this article, the State Board shall certify to the local board of a county the names of candidates on the primary election ballots in that county.
Subtitle 5. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 8-502. Candidates for President -- Primary election (a) Applicability. -- This section applies to the placement on the ballot in the primary election of the names of individuals who are candidates for nomination by principal political parties to the office of President of the United States. (b) Procedure. -- An individual who desires to run in the primary election may be placed on the ballot only: (1) by direction of the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (c) of this section; or (2) by filing, in accordance with subsection (d) of this section, a petition containing the signatures of at least 400 registered voters from each congressional district in the State. (c) Selection by Secretary of State. -(1) The Secretary of State shall certify to the State Board the names of candidates for nomination by a principal political party during the period beginning 90 days before the primary election and ending 80 days before the primary election. (2) The Secretary of State shall certify the name of a presidential candidate on the ballot when the Secretary has determined, in the Secretary's sole discretion and consistent with party rules, that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland, unless the candidate executes and files with the Secretary of State an affidavit stating without qualification that the candidate is not and does not intend to become a candidate for the office in the Maryland primary election.
(d) Petition process. -- A candidate who seeks to be placed on the ballot by the petition process specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section shall file the petition, in the form prescribed by the State Board, on the Wednesday that is 83 days before the day of the election. (e) Democratic primary -- Preference for "uncommitted". -- The State Board shall establish a procedure for the Democratic presidential primary through which votes may be cast as uncommitted to any presidential candidate. (f) Certification of candidates. -- The names of the candidates for President qualifying under this section shall be certified to the local boards by the State Board and shall be printed on all ballots used for the primary election. TITLE 9. VOTING Subtitle 2. BALLOTS 9-210 Arrangement of ballots — Candidates and offices. (e) Names of candidates. — (1) A ballot shall contain the name of every candidate who is authorized under the provisions of this article to appear on the ballot. (2) Each candidate shall be listed on the ballot in the contest for which the candidate has qualified. TITLE 12. CONTESTED ELECTIONS Subtitle 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTIONS 12-204. Judgment. (a) In general. — The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of
this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and: (1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or (2) may change the outcome of a pending election. (b) Act or omission that changed election outcome. — If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall: (1) declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or (2) order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy. (c) Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election. — If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may: (1) order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and (2) if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy, direct that the election for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court. (d) Clear and convincing evidence. — A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence. TITLE 16. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES Subtitle 3. CONDUCT OF ELECTION OFFICIALS 16-301. Neglect of duties; corrupt or fraudulent acts
(a) In general.—An election official or an official of a political party may not willfully neglect official duties under this article or engage in corrupt or fraudulent acts in the performance of official duties under this article. (b) Penalties. —A person who violates this section is subject to a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 3 years or both. Subtitle 10. GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS 16-1001. General penalty provisions. (a) Misdemeanor for which no penalty is specified. — A person convicted of a misdemeanor under this article for which no penalty is specifically provided is subject to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $250 or imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months or both. (b) Disqualification to be election official or employee. — A person who is convicted of any criminal violation of this article shall be disqualified permanently from serving as an election judge, board member, or employee of a board. (c) Disqualification of candidate found in violation. — A candidate who is convicted of any practice prohibited by this article shall be ineligible to be elected or appointed to any public office or employment for a period of 5 years following the date of the conviction. MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTION’S BY-LAWS ARTICLE 4 - RULES OF CONDUCT Section 4.2 - POLITICAL ACTIVITY A. Statutory requirements
The members shall abide by the restrictions to political activities provided under § 2-301 of the Election Law Article. Section 4.5 – LEVEL OF EFFORT Members shall expend the time and effort necessary to ensure that they fully understand their duties and obligations as members of the State Board of Elections and generally understand important concepts in the administration of Maryland elections, such as: the process to register to vote; the purpose of provisional voting; general information about the voting systems; the absentee ballot process; campaign finance requirements; and important election deadlines. ARTICLE 5 – RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Section 5.1 – THE BOARD A. The board shall carry out all duties assigned to it under the Election Law Article and federal law. Section 5.2 – THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF A. The administrator shall carry out all duties assigned to him or her under the Election Law Article, regulations, policies and procedures established by the board, and duties assigned or delegated by the board. B. The administrator, as the State’s Chief Election Official, is responsible for all aspects of managing elections in Maryland including the day-to-day operation of the State office, implementing State election laws and regulations, and serving as a subject matter expert for the Board, the General Assembly, and other stakeholders.
Section 5.4 – DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR The Board delegates the duties designated in Duties of the State Board and State Administrator to the administrator. SUPREME COURT CASES - ELECTIONS Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211 (1992) The court calls it a "fundamental right" to "cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud" Wesberry v. Sanders - 376 U.S. 1 (1964) No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right. SUPREME COURT CASES - NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite 'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' "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.” Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Justice Gray cites Chief Justice Taney: The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “No person, except a 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," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U.S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 100 U.S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of
these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall: “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. “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." The Nereide - 13 U.S. 388 (1815) Chief Justice Marshall “It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the
discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.” Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, "Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations." 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton: "When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281. Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said: "If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land." 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423. As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U. S. 416, 229
U. S. 434 (1913). Natural Born Citizen in the Constitutional drafts: June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton’s draft for the Constitution suggests in Article IX, Section 1 that: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." (Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407). July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "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." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington) September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter" (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] pae 76.) September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. (Madison’s notes of the Convention - September 4th, 1787) .The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Natural Born Citizen in the Congressional Debates The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was an act to end slavery in the U.S. and make the freed slaves, citizens. The discussion of these debates actually having been quoted by Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649: "During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: 'All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.' Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked 'whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?' Mr. Trumbull answered, 'Undoubtedly;' (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session p. 498, 573, 57) When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, father of the future 14th amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s amendment to the bill: "I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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" (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)
Again, back in 1862, Representative John Bingham: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639) The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard's amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890) The law he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and states: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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;" Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27.
Obama’s father was subject to a foreign power and was a British subject (exhibit 6). He was governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born, which made Obama a British Subject at birth and it is impossible to become a natural born citizen, if you are not born as one. Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in the 14th amendment, which is why the law/amendment went astray. The Congressional records of the 14th amendment debates, give us Trumbull’s exact definition of the intent of his Citizenship Clause amendment to the bill. Who would know the intent of the Citizenship Clause better than anyone, than the person who wrote the clause himself? Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893) Trumbull’s words prove without a doubt that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power. Further supporting my claims is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America which states: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom
or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” 8 USC § 1448 - Oath of renunciation and allegiance. Now why would immigrants not born here and becoming citizens, be required to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, but people born here to immigrants are not held to that same allegiance requirement? That just makes no sense. Full allegiance is required for citizenship and the Naturalization Oath and Civil Rights Act prove that the Founders did not recognize dual citizenship and required full allegiance.
STATEMENT OF FACTS After several years of thorough research of Congressional records, we believe our facts that define a natural born citizen, as by the exact people who authored the laws themselves, to be someone born to two citizen parents, which provides the full allegiance for citizenship. Because the defendants have no clear intent of the law on presidential requirements or don’t understand a law, in no way gives them the right to suspend those laws. When power corrupts and people feel they are above the law and don’t need to follow them, it puts our country in grave danger and abridges the rights of the people. I would first like to explain why we have come to court without representation. We are both aware that it is not a smart thing to do, to be your own attorney, however we’ve called practically every attorney in Maryland and many outside of Maryland, we called every lawyer referral service in Maryland we could find and we called every County Bar Association in the State, in which the woman at the Carroll County Bar
Association, in my own county, after explaining my case, said “You are a nutcase and need to check yourself into a mental institution”, which I find extremely inappropriate, when they have no clue of the facts in this case. We almost thought of walking away from this case because it is much too hard to fight government, much less try and do it without an attorney, but when there is clear and convincing evidence, someone must stand up to the corruption and try to end it. There must be someone of authority, that will look at the facts and see that we are not “crazy” and that we are just trying to defend our Constitution and save our Country. We believe the facts show that the term Natural Born Citizen is not based upon English Common Law, but rather on Vattel’s definition written in his legal treatise of 1758 titled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. An interesting illustration is offered by some early statistics concerning courts: within 31 years, from 1789-1820 Grotius was cited in pleadings 16 times, Pufendorf 9 times; Bynkershoek 25 times; Vattel 92times. The courts themselves cited Vattel over 60 times. (Traditional doctrine on intervention in the law of nations. pg. 252.) That the framers of the Constitution were influenced by the Law of Nations cannot be disputed. It has always been considered, by the Supreme Court, as relevant to international legal disputes in American tribunals. Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian
reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. In a letter from Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas, dated Dec.19, 1775, Franklin states: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.” Ben Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas - December 9, 1775. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 2 September 1775 - December 1775, page 466. In reading the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it is declared that the Founders broke ties with British Law and assumed Natural Law, and Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, was what the Founder’s used when writing the Constitution, as was just confirmed by Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles Dumas. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776. Vattel’s treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains the exact same passage as the 1775 edition given to Franklin by Dumas. “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.” (Emphasis added.) “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg. 101.(App. Pg. 161.) Book 1, Chapter XIX. section 212 goes on to read: “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.” In late 1779, Governor Thomas Jefferson, a College alumnus and member of its Board of Visitors, guided the creation of a law school at the College. In contrast to the practice of the day that aspiring lawyers serve as apprentices to members of the bar, Jefferson felt that legal education would best be accomplished in a university setting where students would study law amid the liberal arts. On December 4, 1779, the College’s Board of Visitors appointed George Wythe, in whose office Jefferson had apprenticed, as the College’s and nation’s first professor of law. Wythe was Jefferson’s beloved mentor and an enormously distinguished figure of the era. A member of the Second Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Wythe had begun his career in public service as a member and later clerk in the Virginia House of Burgesses. A distinguished lawyer and legal scholar, he would later serve on the Virginia bench and, as a member of the Constitutional Convention, became one of the architects of the federal Constitution, championing its ratification in his home state. Wythe’s students at William & Mary attended lectures twice a week where they might discuss the common law, American constitutional law, or the work of political theorists or classical authors. Wythe honed students’ advocacy skills through moot court arguments and also convened mock legislatures where students gained rich experience writing, debating, and revising legislation, taking as their model legislation pending before the General Assembly.
Among those first students was John Marshall, who went on to become the fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and whose 34-year tenure, left a profound mark on the high court and the country. Statues of Wythe & Marshall stand at the Law School’s entrance commemorating the founding of the nation’s first law school at William & Mary. Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson “On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations, & the Fine Arts to the duties of the Moral professor, and Natural history to those of the professor of Mathematics and Natural philosophy” Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1790: By Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, George Haven Putnam. Natural Born Presidents Every President Other Than Chester Arthur Was Born In The U.S. Of Citizen Parents, Or Was Eligible Under The Grandfather Clause In Article 2, Section 1. Chester Arthur's father, William, did not naturalize until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. (Naturalization certificate for William Arthur, 1843; Library of Congress, Chester Arthur Papers.) (App. Pg. 163.) Therefore, Chester Arthur was, at birth, a British subject.
On Nov 3, 1884, President Arthur's Fourth Annual Message to Congress included the following cryptic statement: "An uniform rule of naturalization such as the Constitution contemplates should,among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization. A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries." President Chester Arthur, Fourth Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1894., pg. 8. (App. Pg. 173. ) The statement is rich with context. President Arthur indicated that persons born in the U.S., subject to a foreign power, required naturalization. Additionally, he calls for the status of such persons to be clarified. Which class of persons subject to a foreign power does he refer to? Certainly not ambassadors and ministers, since their status has always been clear. And only four weeks earlier, in Nov. 1884, the status of Indians was declared in Elk v. Wilkins, so he's not making reference to them. That leaves the third class of persons discussed on page 73 of The Slaughter-House Cases, "citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States". Since Justice Gray cited to that exact page as precedent, just four weeks earlier, in the Supreme Court's opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, President Arthur, having been born to an alien father, had good reason to be alarmed. Justice Gray, at that time (Nov. 1884), certainly appeared to have adopted the opinion stated in the Slaughter-House Cases, that
children of aliens, born in the country, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: "The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all persons . . born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73;” Note that Justice Gray cited to pg. 73 of The Slaughter-House Cases, and the statement bears repeating: "The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73(1872). Furthermore, Justice Gray, at this point in time, treated the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as synonymous with “owing no allegiance to any alien power”. Chester Arthur’s Message makes clear he believed that persons born to aliens in the U.S. required naturalization. And since those who require naturalization are not natural-born, Chester Arthur’s statement appears to be a veiled admission that he was not eligible to be President. HISTORY Mr. Obama’s grade school papers (exhibit #7), shown on CBS’s Inside Edition, list his name as Barry Soetoro, his nationality as Indonesian and his religion as islam.
This confirms that, as a child, Mr. Obama was adopted by his step father Lolo Soetoro, as Obama’s step sister, Maya Soetoro has claimed. Barack Obama: School Life in Indonesia - Tuesday, 05/06/08: http://www.insideedition.com/videos/132/barack-obama-school-lifein-indonesia.aspx According to the Attorney’s Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (ARDC), when Mr. Obama filled out his Illinois Bar Application on December 17, 1991, he failed to list his full former name of Barry Soetoro (exhibit #8). There is no record of Mr. Soetoro changing his name back to Mr. Obama and this in itself, deserves investigating. The Kenyan Parliament is even on record in the Kenyan Hansard minutes, stating that Mr. Obama is a “Son of the soil of that country” and that he is “not even a native American”. Wouldn’t it be extremely easy for our government to contact the Kenyan Parliament and ask them why they are claiming this? Why is it so hard for someone to believe that the Kenyan might just be telling the truth? There’s even a birth certificate from Nairobi that says Obama was born at the King George VI Hospital (exhibit 9), which just so happened to become the World’s Central location for AIDS research and was given millions and millions of dollars, under the Obama administration, I’d like to know how and why this hospital was chosen and can’t believe it was just a coincidence! All other facts, combined with Arizona’s Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation, which is the only official police investigation in the whole country investigating the forged birth certificate, without a doubt shows that the Obama’s eligibility issue, definitely needs more investigating and any vote for him, should be blocked until this issue is resolved.
CONCLUSION - RELIEF SOUGHT We ask the honorable court to review our petition under Election Law Title 12 Subtitle 2-203 Procedure: 1, The proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require before the April 3, 2012 primary.
We respectfully request the following judgement: 1. Law 8-502 be invalidated, so not to infringe upon the rights of the people. 2. Law 5-302 be followed, to restore faith and the rule of law in our election system. 3. That all candidates be required to sign under oath that they fill the requirements. 4. The members of the General Assembly that voted for this 8-502 law be censured and removed from office and prevented from running for office in the future, because they have failed to follow the U.S.Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, Article 1 Sec 7 and their own oath of office. Article 1 Sec 9. 5. A new election be held in November 2012 to elect new members of the General Assembly, the Governor and Attorney General. 6. The Secretary of State be instructed to follow 5-302 starting with this election.
For the reasons stated above, we feel we have proven that there is no other choice, but to remove Mr. Obama from all Maryland ballots forthcoming, because he does not meet the requirements of a Natural Born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Leaving Mr. Obama’s name on the ballot is not only unconstitutional, but also violates all American’s 14th amendment rights, by not enforcing a law that abridges
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, not to mention our right to fair elections by qualified candidates, that are free of fraud. Any Maryland law that is contrary to the Constitution is notwithstanding according to the Constitution itself. If this constitutional error is not corrected and is allowed to stand, it will set precedent that all one needs, is to be born here, to run for the office of President, which is 100% contrary to the Founder’s intent. If this unconstitutional change to the definition of Natural Born Citizen is allowed to persist, it won’t be long until a person born to foreigners, with full allegiance to another country, can become president of the United States, completely voiding the U.S. Constitution. That will be the end of America, if this unconstitutional President doesn’t ruin it first.
VERIFICATION We solemnly affirm under penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing Complaint are true to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.
___________________________ Tracy A. Fair ___________________________ Mary C. Miltenberger
EXHIBITS 1. Obama’s 2008 certification of nomination that omitted the Constitutional clause. 2. Chart from the State Board of Elections website stating the President and Vice President must be Natural Born Citizens. 3. Kenyan Hansard minutes stating Obama in nat a native American. 4. Sheriff Arpaio’s complete investigation on Obama’s birth certificate. 5. Letter signed by Jared DeMarinis of the Board of Elections stating that the Board follows all relevant laws. 6. Government document proving Obama Sr.’s country of birth was Kenyan and that his country of citizenship was Africa. 7. Copy of Obama’s Indonesia elementary school records showing his name as Barry Soetoro and his nationality as Indonesian. 8. Copy of Obama’s Illinois bar application showing he omitted his other former names. 9. Possibly Obama’s real birth certificate from Nairobi, which needs validating.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?