F

R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .iii,iiii
INTRODUCTION 1
ARGUMENT
1. SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 1
A. COURT ERRRED BY ADDING REQUIREMENT TO
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIA ELECTION
CODE 13314, RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR
AMERICA FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANT BARNETT'S
ARGUMENTS 7
B. COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON FACTS AND LAW
BEFORE IT REGARDING CANDIDATE OBAMA'S IN-
ELIGffiILITY, RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FOR
AMERICA, BOWEN, FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANT
BARNETT'S LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT OBAMA
IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL DE JURE
PRESIDENT '" 10
C. ARGUMENT AS TO AND FOR A DECISION ON THE LAW
BASED UPON CANDIDATE OBAMA'S OWN ADMISSION
AGAINST INTEREST THAT HIS LEGAL FATHERIS A
BRITISH SUBJECT WHICH APPLIES TO THE DUTY OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO BAR BALLOT ACCESS AS WITH
PETA LINDSAY OF THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY OR
ELSE DEEMED ARBITRARY NOT REBUTTED BY
RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR
AMERICA 13
D. COURT ERRED IN RULING CONGRESS IS THE SOLE JUDGE
OF ARTICLE 2 ELECTION PROCESS AS TO INELIGIBILITY,
STARE DECISIS OF 3
RD
DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY,
APPELLANTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA
FAIL TO REBUT 16
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
E. APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, ACTUAL BIAS, AND
UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER LAW BY STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LOWER COURT, RESPONDENTS
FAILED TO REBUT 18
F. CEC § 6901 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE
BECAUSE IT PREVENTS SECRETARY OF STATE FROM
FULFILLING HISIHER DUTIES AS CHIEF ELECTION
OFFICER 18
G. COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED PETITIONERS DID NOT
STATE ACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER
CCP § 1085, RESPONDENT BOWEN WRONGLY ARGUES
STARDECISIS APPLIES HEREIN '" .23
H. COURT ERRED IN RULING SECRETARY OF STATE DOES
NOT HAVE MINSTERIAL DUTY TO VET PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES 27
1. COURT ERRED BY NOT GIVING rusr CONSIDERATION TO
FRAUD RELATED TO OBAMA'S IDENTITY DOCUMENTS IN ITS
DECISION TO SUSTAIN DEMURERS BECAUSE PUBLIC
INTEREST OF FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS AND PROTECTING
CONSTITUTION OUTWEIGHS CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SUPPORTS
MISPRISION OF FELONY, TREASON 28
J. DEMAND FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IS NOT
MOOT 29
K. SPECIAL STANDING OF APPELLANT BARNETT
CLARIFIED 31
CONCLUSION 40
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 39
EXHIBIT-PRIVATE DE mRE CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES .42
11
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
The Peace andFreedom Party v. Bowen (No. 2: 12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB
(E.D.Cal. 04/26/2012)
.................................................................................... 14,15
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983) .15
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) 11,31
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) 9,17
Bullockv. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972) .16
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 Us. 1(1892), 17
Hicklin v. Orbeck (No. 77-324) 565 P.2d 159 '" 30
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898 9 6,31,31,39
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) 219 U.S. 498 .31
Sosna v. Iowa (1975) 419 US. 393 .31
State Cases
Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d 206,551 P.2d 1 '" 28,31
Jacobson v. Town ofPortola Valley, No. A114960 (Cal.App. Dist.1
10/18/2007) 22,26
Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29
Cal.4th 911,916 23
Fuller v. Bowen (2012) 203 Cal.App.dth 1476 8,9,25,27
Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 647,661. 04,17,27
Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 1115,
1125 27
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
Regarding Horneffv. City and County a/Sun Francisco (2003) 2
Cal.Rptr.3d 79'82 30
State Statutes
California Election Code
CEC § 6901 4,17,18,19,20
CEC § 6041 20
CEC § 13314 2,3,6,7,8,9,10,21,22,24
Code of Civil Procedure
CCP§
1085 4,21
CCP § 1089.5 22
CCP §
1094.5 22,23 ,24
United States Code
18 U.S.C. 4 12.28
18 U.S.C. 2382 12,28
Section 15 of Title 3 of the United States Code 15
California State Government Code
§ 12172.5
United States Constitution
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 .3
zo" Amendment 17,31
14
th
Amendment 19,23,31,34-37
1st Amendment " " 22
3
rd
Amendment 22
4
th
Amendment 22
California Constitution
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
Article VI, Section 10 3
Other Authorities
Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay Contribution To Natural Born
Citizen Requirement DfU.S. Constitution 2
The Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen (No. 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB
(E.D.Cai.
04/26/2012) 13
USCIS Interpretations Regarding Legal Differences Between Native,
Natural Bom.11,12
Trading With The Enemy Act. 29
Nazi Enabling Act. 22
iiii
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
INTRODUCTION
This closing reply brief is filed by Appellant Pamela Denise
Barnett in esse sui juris the secured beneficiary agent and attorney-in-
fact for the debtor business trust PAMELA DENISE BARNETT
(hereinafter known as "Pamela Barnett" "BARNETT" or
BARNETT's Agent" "APPELLANT)) as an essential supplement
with distinction to the opening and reply briefs of Appellant
EDWARD C. NOONAN (''NOONAN'') represented by
NATHANIEL 1. OLESON, ESQ. (276695) ofthe UNITED STATES
JUSTICE FOUNDATION. APPELLANT BARNETT filed her
opening brief July 10,2013, and was granted an extension by the
court to file her REPLY BRIEF no later than December 2, 2013.
I.
ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
In the interest of adhering to our nations tenant belief that we are a nation
of laws and not of men and that no man should be above the law,
APPELLANT as a private citizen pleads to the court to not cower as other
courts have done in the interest ofjustice for our country concerning the
Presidential usurper known as Barack Hussein Obama, a British and
Kenyan born citizen, and an adopted son of Indonesia who illegally reigns
from the White House selling our country to globalist banks and companies
by sending them billions of tax payer dollars instead of American
companies and selling the American citizen worker down the toilet by
promoting legalizing tens of million foreign invaders that will take
American citizen jobs and drive down our wages and benefits. U.S.
Appeal #C071764NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 1
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
citizens of California and African American communities especially stand
to suffer the most under foreigner Obama's policies to destroy America. It
should be no surprise that Obama, a person born and raised with foreign
interests, would not have 100% allegiance to this country.
"Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor
devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen," future Chief Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court wrote to George Washington July 25, 1787, while the
Constitution was still being drafted by the Constitutional Convention.
RESPONDENT OBAMA is as much a foreigner as he is a U.S. citizen,
if in fact he is one. It cannot be legally stated that OBAMA is without
foreign national citizenship/allegiance. He brings the foreign influence into
the position of Commander in Chief that Chief Justice warned about. So far
Obama has supported wars in Libya, Egypt and Syria and wants to commit
to an endless war in Afghanistan with the purse and the blood of U.S.
citizens where there was/is no national security interest. He has stolen tax
payer money to pay for and promote a new Kenya Constitution to be
written and adopted which will allow him to run for office as the President
of Kenya if he so chooses. Which country is OBAMA loyal to the most?
APPELLANT BARNETT had brought the petition based on Calif.
Election Statute §13314, which gives her standing to challenge a ballot that
she believes based on law and fact to have an error based on the
ineligibility of a candidate, and gives the court the jurisdiction to decide the
matter with a writ of mandate.
A literal reading of this statute plus the 3
rd
District Appellate Courts own
past rulings support this petition brought to challenge the election ballot
listing of ineligible, unlawful candidates, like RESPONDENT BARACK
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 2
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
HUSSEIN OBAMA and other candidates similarly situated under u.S. and
California Constitutional requirements.
RESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA had NOT countered
APPELLANT BARNETT's argument that she has the legal right to have
this petition heard on merits under CEC § 13314. The lower court erred by
falsely stating that RESPONDENT BOWEN had to have failed at
performing a ministerial duty to be able to have legal relief under CEC §
13314.
Furthermore, RESPONDENTS did not object to APPELLANT
BARNETT'S request made in her AOB page 3 line 1, that this honorable
court make a decision on the merits under their power of original
jurisdiction authority under Article VI, Section 10 of the California
Constitution.
Candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA also did not argue against his
admission against interest that he was born a BRITISH citizen or that this
admitted fact precludes him from being a de jure, constitutional porus
candidate as required under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, of the U.S.
Constitution and subsequently under California law. APPELLANT
therefore asks this court to decide the eligibility of Candidate
RESPONDENT OBAMA based on his admission against interest that he
was born a British Citizen by his admitted legal father Barack Hussein
Obama Sr., and thus cannot be a U.S. NATURAL Born Citizen regardless
of his mother's citizenship and/or place of birth of candidate
RESPONDENT OBAMA. The lower court and RESPONDENTS
BOWEN, OBAMA AND OBAMA FOR AMERICA failed to provide legal
argument that OBAMA is in fact a legal president and by extension a
legally qualified presidential candidate. This is understandable because
there is no legitimate U.S. legal argument that he is a U.S. NATURAL
Born Citizen.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 3
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
APPELLANT BARNETT would like to clarify with the court that she
did file a Verification with the FAP and refers the court to Augmentation 2.
APPELLANT BARNETT also disagrees with RESPONDENT
BOWEN's inference at Footnote 3 in her RESPONDENT BRIEF that;
3These arguments are most clearly identified in the brief
of APPELLANT NOONAN, who is represented by
counsel. Liberally construed, the brief filed by Appellant
BARNETT, who is proceeding pro se advances the same
contentions.
Arguments on appeal by APPELLANT BARNETT are greater in
number and address more issues than contained within APPEALLANT
NOONAN'S AOB. However, for brevity BARNETT had adopted
APPELLANT NOONAN arguments for her own in her AOB regarding the
unconstitutionality of CEC § 6901, but also argued that CEC § 6901 is not
controlling in this petition. BARNETT also adopted APPELLANT
NOONAN arguments that PETITIONERS did state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate under CCP §
1085, and also argues that CCP §1085 may not be controlling in
APPELLANT'S FAP.
CEC § 6901 was NOT brought up in the original petition as it does not
apply to this petition because the petition was filed before RESPONDENT
BOWEN had even performed her duty to select candidates to be added to
the primary ballot. CEC § 6901 only pertains to the general election, not
the primary. Consequently, this petition now before the court cannot be
judged according to the case Keyes v. Bowen, the case decided by this
court in 2009. RESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA successfully
mislead the lower court with their deceptive offensive to change
PETITIONER BARNETT's argument to have this case judged using the
Keyes v. Bowen where CEC § 6901 was used as the basis to NOT hear case
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 4
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
on the merits .. This is the case that the lower court and RESPONDENT
Obama would like to have this court use to discard this petition before them
so they will NOT rule on the merits of candidate RESPONDENT Obama's
constitutional ineligibility under the NATURAL born citizen requirement
which should have precluded him from being added to the California State
ballot otherwise it be fraud on the citizens of California.
Also deceptive by RESPONDENT BOWEN is her action to pick and
choose which Presidential candidates to adjudicate for ballot access.
Bowen had claimed she did NOT have ministerial duty to remove
constitutionally unqualified candidates from the ballot while removing
Peace and Freedom Party candidate Peta Lindsay from the ballot. Lindsey
had made a public admission against interest that she was not of age to be
President, just as RESPONDENT OBAMA had publicly declared that he
was born a British citizen, the was the son of a Kenyan foreigner who was
never a U.S. citizen as required by American common law at the time of a
child's birth to be deemed a U.S. Natural born citizen. BOWEN'S special
treatment for her Democratic party member RESPONDENT OBAMA is
reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's Democratic Socialist Party, Lenin's Bolshevik
party, and tyrant monarchs such as British King Henry VIII and his court.
If you were not part of the party, you had no guaranteed rights like what we
are supposed to have under the U.S. Constitution and California
Constitution.
In addition to the deceptive behavior of RESPONDENTS in attempt to
try to lead the court away from the real arguments, OBAMA attempts to
disparage private citizen APPELLANT BARNETT by name calling in an
attempt to negatively color the court's perception of APPELLANTS by
calling us "birthers". In OBAMA's use of Saul Alinsky thug tactics,
OBAMA and his regime and operatives have without merit colored citizens
that care that the Constitution is enforced for the protection of our country
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 5
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
from foreign influence as racist and/or stupid OBAMA haters. It is well
established in Exhibit 10 ofFAP (AA 1:180-225) a working copy chapter
from BARNETT'S book Obama Never Vetted, The Unlawful President,
The National Security Loopholes & Ensuing Conspiracy That Endanger
America, that Presidential, Senate and Representative candidates'
Constitutional qualifications are NOT required to be vetted. Federal
candidates and elects NEVER even have to prove they are citizens, yet
alone have presidential candidates prove they are NATURAL born citizens
with no foreign allegiances -AND NO BACKGROUND CHECK IS
REQUIRED TO BE DONE FOR OBTAINING A NATIONAL
SECURITY CLEARANCE OR VERIFICATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS REQUIRED AFTER
CANDIDATES ARE SWORN IN.
Consequently there is no proof that Obama was/is even a U.S. citizen,
as he has never had to prove U.S. citizenship to be an Illinois State Senator,
a U.S. Senator or even the President of the United States, and of course he
could have attended his colleges as a foreign student. Additionally,
OBAMA under the alias Soebarkah (in addition to Barry Soetoro) was
hashmarked off of his mother's passport which indicates that he was not a
U.S. citizen according to language on the first page of passport document
(AA) which was affirmed August 13, 1968, before a State Department
Vice Consul while residing in Indonesia with his adoptive father Lo Lo
Soetoro. It is an established fact that John Brennan's company infiltrated
Obama's passport records in 2008, so we will never know what passports
from other countries Obama used and when he used them. Brennan, is a
long time CIA operative with past assignments in Saudi Arabia, and now
heads Obama's CIA.
APPELLANT BARNETT is only an Army of one private citizen who is
a military veteran, using her voice and her pen under what's left of her first
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 6
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
amendment rights, and her right to challenge a wrong on the State ballot
under CEC § 13314 to try to ensure the Presidential election results in
California are legal and lawful under our Constitution and the laws of
California. It remains to be seen if this court will allow this private citizen
her right to redress of grievances to help expose this crime against
California and the United States. Thus far, the Supreme Court with two
OBAMA appointees has failed to hear any cases on OBAMA's
constitutional ineligibility.
A. COURT ERRRED BY ADDING REQUIREMENT TO
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTION CODE § 13314, RESPONDENTS BOWEN,
OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA FAILED TO REBUT
APPELLANT BARNETT'S ARGUMENTS
The lower court ruled that PETITIONERS could only receive due process
under California Election Code (CEC) § 13314 if the State failed to
perform a ministerial duty. (AA 2:404) However, this code that gives
redress to the electors of California does not mention or hint that a
ministerial duty had to have been unperformed by the State. The code does
not even mention the words "ministerial duty". The language of CEC §
13314 is plain and direct. (Underlined for emphasis by APPELLANT.)
13314. (a) (1) An elector may seek a writ of mandate
alleging that an error or omission has occurred, or is about to
occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, a
ballot, sample ballot,voter pamphlet, or other official matter,
or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon
proof of both of the following:
(A) That the error, omission, or neglect is in violation of
this code or the Constitution.
(B) That issuance of the writ will not substantially interfere
with the conduct of the election.
(3) The action or appeal shall have priority over all other
civil matters.
Appeal #C071764 NOONANV. BOWEN Page 7
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
(4) The Secretary of State shall be named as a respondent or
a real party in interest in any proceeding under this section
concerning a measure or a candidate described in Section
15375, except for a candidate for judge of the superior court.
(b) Venue for a proceeding under this section shall be
exclusively in Sacramento County in any of the following
cases:
(1) The Secretary of State is named as a real party in
interest or as a respondent.
(2) A candidate for statewide elective office is named as a
party.
(3) A statewide measure that is to be placed on the ballot is
the subject of the proceeding.
RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, AND BOWEN
failed to rebut APPELLANT BARNETT'S argument on this matter and the
3
rd
District appears to be in full agreement with BARNETT.
Neither the superior court or the 3
rd
District Court of Appeals ruled that
Petitioner Heidi Fuller in Fuller v. Bowen, did not have standing under
CEC § 13314 because the State failed to perform a ministerial duty, on the
contrary, both courts made a ruling on the merits in this case. Like Fuller,
BARNETT brought a petition under CEC § 13314 because she believed
there was about to be an error made on the ballot, because facts proved a
candidate was not eligible under the Constitution.
Quoting from recent Fuller ruling (Fuller v. Bowen (2012) 203
Cal.AppAth 1476);
"Our interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it's not
the judiciary's role to judge qualifications and elections of
candidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation
does not invalidate section 13314, however, because the application
of that section is not limited to challenging the qualifications and
elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature."
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 8
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
"We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the
law, including the Constitution. But as we will explain, our
interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it is not the
judiciary's role to judge the qualifications and elections of candidates
for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does not
invalidate section 13314, however, because the application of that
section is not limited to challenging the qualifications and elections
of candidates for membership in the Legislature. Moreover, because
our interpretation resolves this case, it is unnecessary to reach any
other constitutional questions, even if we might have jurisdiction to
do so." (AA 1:99) (Emphasis by BARNETT)
By the court accepting and ruling on the Fuller case it proves that the
Secretary of State has ministerial duty to determine eligibility of all
candidates except candidates for the State Legislature when a question of
eligibility if made known to her and alludes to the court having the
jurisdiction to make a ruling a Constitutional eligibility under CEC §
13314. Third District does not ever state in Fuller that a ministerial duty
was not performed by the same Secretary of State RESPONDENT
BOWEN. CEC § 13314 does not exclude federal candidates and no federal
law exists that would render CEC § 13314 unconstitutional if used to vet
the eligibility of President of the Unite States candidates. On the contrary,
federal law strongly supports the power of States to vet federal candidates
for constitutional eligibility as in McPherson v. Blacker. The McPherson v.
Blacker ruling asserts States' rights regarding control of elections to
included ensuring the State has a legal ballot that citizens can rely on.
Lower court and RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR
AMERICA, do not cite a case that references that there has to be a failure
of a State officer to perform a ministerial duty to have a judge make a
ruling using CEC § 13314. According to BARNETT's research, no such
case exists.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 9
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(B) COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON FACTS AND LAW
BEFORE IT REGARDING CANDIDATE OBAMA'S IN-
ELIGIBILITY, RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA,
BOWEN, FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANT BARNETT'S LEGAL
ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL
BORN CITIZEN, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL DE JURE
PRESIDENT
The lower court stated at (AA) 2:392) that "The amended petition fails
to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it requires the
Court either to make a factual determination as to whether President Obama
is eligible to hold or run for the office of President of the United States ...."
(Emphasis by Barnett)
BARNETT contends that this is not true because the facts and law were
before the lower court.
Recently the federal court confirmed APPELLANT BARNETT's
arguments that the States have the power and the duty to protect the federal
ballot from "fraudulent candidates" such as candidate RESPONDENT
OBAMA. Correspondingly, the lower court had the duty to rule on the
facts and the law regarding this case to protect the legal interests of
California and the rights of our citizens.
RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, BOWEN, had
the opportunity in the lower court to rebut admissions against interest made
by candidate APPELLANT OBAMA. APPELLANT OBAMA has publicly
claimed as his life story that his legal father is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
Divorce paperwork of his purported mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 10
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
legal BritishlKenyan foreign national father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
which was submitted to the court (First Augmentation: 21-26)
So with APPELLANT OBAMA's own admission against interest that
he was born a British citizen became a fact before the court and with the
long standing definition of a U.S. NATURAL Born citizen which require
both parents to be citizens in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) no
judicial determination needed to be made. OBAMA knew this case was a
danger to his rise to power and his classmate at Harvard and President of
Justia.com, the most viewed legal website, had the case removed from other
cases that referenced it regarding citizenship Link-. Candidate
APPELLANT OBAMA is at best a native born citizen if born in Hawaii,
because if he was not born in America he would also not be a U.S. born a
citizen under statute through his mother as she was NOT old enough to pass
on citizenship to a foreign born child. RESPONDENT OBAMA would
have had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.
Even the federal government recognizes that there is a legal difference
between a NATURAL and NATIVE Born citizen in their administrative
law that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has relied on
regarding loss and regaining U.S. citizenship due to marriage.
http://web.archive.orglweb/20100120153413/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView
/SLB/HTML/SLB/O-O-O-I /0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
Three provisions used by USCIS establish official recognition by the
federal government that native-born and natural-born are separately
delineated. When you visit the above link to a recent past page of the
Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to "Interpretation
324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage."
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 11
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
"The repatriation provisions ofthese two most recent enactments also
apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself
by marriage to an alien ... " (Emphasis added.)
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
"(7) Restoration ofcitizenship is prospective. Restoration to citizenship
under anyone ofthe three statutes is not regarded as having erased the
period ofalienage that immediately preceded it.
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen ofthe United States to the
same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or
after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes,
are prospective and restore the status ofnative-born or natural-born
citizen (whichever existedprior to the loss) as ofthe date citizenship was
reacquired. " (Emphasis added.)
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
"The effect ofnaturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the
previous period ofalienage, but to restore the person to the status if
naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status
prior to loss. " (Emphasis added.)
The above mentioned interpretations regarding the officially
recognized different statuses of naturalized, native and natural-born citizens
was published by the Obama Administration, but they removed when
public attention was brought to it - native-born and natural-born are given
separate consideration as they are legally different forms of citizenship.
And in the third example - from Interpretation 324.2(b) - the USCIS
clearly states that each delineation, "naturalized, native, or natural-born
citizen", is a separate status. Candidate Obama may be a native born
citizen if born in Hawaii, but he is NOT a natural-born citizen as
required by the U.S. Constitution to be President.
Appeal #C071764NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 12
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
Is it not misprision of felony fraud and misprision of treason (under 18
U.S.c. 4 and 18 U.S.c. 2382) for the court and its officers not to act in a
way that would defend the State and the United States from the national
security risk of having a usurper with foreign allegiance occupy the White
House?
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(C) ARGUMENT AS TO ANDFOR A DECISION ON THE LAW
BASED UPON CANDIDATE OBAMA'S OWN ADMISSION
AGAINST INTEREST THAT IDS LEGAL FATHER IS A BRITISH
SUBJECT WHICH APPLIES TO THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY
OF STATE TO BAR BALLOT ACCESS AS WITH PETA LINDSAY
OF THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY OR ELSE DEEMED
ARBITRARY NOT REBUTTED BY RESPONDENTS BOWEN,
OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA
RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA,
failed to rebut APPELLANT'S argument that a decision on the law based
upon candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA'S own admission against interest
that he was born a British/Kenyan citizen to his British/Kenyan legal birth
father and applies to the duty of the Secretary of State to bar ballot access
as with Presidential candidate Peta Lindsay of the Peace and Freedom Party
or else RESPONDENT BOWEN's inaction be deemed arbitrary. That
OBAMA in his demurrer provided judicial notice that was accepted by the
Court, and OBAMA was given the opportunity, but did not deny
OBAMA's admission against interest in his demurrer, and BOWEN and
OBAMA FORAMERICA failed to rebut this admitted fact as well.
BOWEN didn't even investigate the matter when it was brought to her as a
controversy in December, 2008, and then again in December, 2012. She
Appeal #C071764 NOONANV. BOWEN Page 13
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
made a decision on the law herself instead of referring to court or even
Attorney General for a legal opinion.
It is incredulous that RESPONDENT BOWEN would argue in this case
that she has no ministerial duty or power to remove candidate
RESPONDENT OBAMA from the ballot when she has herself as have past
Secretaries of State removed constitutionally ineligible Presidential
candidates. Very recently, in a federal case against RESPONDENT
BOWEN brought by Peta Lindsay and the Peace and Freedom Party
RESPONDENT BOWEN argues the opposite and does not address her
ministerial, authoritative action to remove Lindsay from the ballot in her
RESPONSE BRIEF as part of the 4
th
Circuit Court of Appeal The Peace
and Freedom Party v. Bowen (No. 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB (E.D.Cal.
04/26/2012) .
At paragraph 48 the Defendant Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejoins:
"to the extent that Plaintiffs allege a separate equal protection claim, it also
fails." (Opp'n 9:21-28 nA.) Defendant argues, "because Ms. Lindsay is
admittedly ineligible to be President, Plaintiffs are not similarly situated
with the persons with whom they compare themselves and there is a
rational basis for the Secretary's decision." Id. Defendant further argues:
any difference in treatment is the result of the fundamentally different
contexts in which the treatment occurred. Inthe cases to which Plaintiffs
refer, the personal qualifications of the various nominees were, fairly or
not, in dispute.
Then, RESPONDENT BOWEN exhibits her arbitrary and capricious
position and her positive bias toward her party's candidate RESPONDENT
OBAMA by then incredulously arguing "Where there are challenges to a
candidate's eligibility, the Secretary of State has no duty to investigate and
verify the personal qualifications of any political party's nominee."
BOWEN treats OBAMA and LINDAY differently under the color of law.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 14
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
The 4
th
Circuit Court of Appeal The Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen
(No. 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB (E.D.Cal. 04/26/2012) does also support
that the Secretary of State has duties under statute ...
That at paragraph 35 the Court states:
Defendant counters, "[a]lthough ... regulation of the selection and
eligibility of candidates, 'inevitably affects' an individual's First and
Fourteenth Amendment right to vote and to associate with others ..,
where a state law imposes only reasonable, non-discriminatory
restrictions on these rights, 'the State's important regulatory interests
are generally sufficient to justify the restrictions.'" (Opp'n 6:26-7:4
(quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983).)
Defendant further rejoins that "[t]he state's important interests in ...
protecting the integrity of the election process and avoiding voter
confusion, justify any limitation on Plaintiffs' rights that the
omission of a candidate who is admittedly ineligible to serve as
President may impose." Id. at 9:12-14.
So RESPONDENT BOWEN cares about the integrity of the ballot only
when it benefits her party member RESPONDENT OBAMA?
At paragraph 41 the Court says:
In this case, the Secretary of State excluded Lindsay from the ballot
since it is undisputed that she is "eight years shy of meeting the age
requirement to hold Presidential office." (Opp'n 9:3-4.) Although
Lindsay argues this age requirement does not apply to her request to
be listed on the ballot, Plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on this
argument since "the State understandably and properly [mayl
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 15
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
seek[] to prevent the clogging of its election machinery [and)
avoid voter confusion," by restricting who is listed on the ballot
to persons meeting the age requirement applicable to assuming
the presidential office. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145
(1972)(also stating "a State has an interest, ifnot a duty, to protect
the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent
candidacies"). This age limitation is a "neutral candidacy
qualification," which the State is authorized to impose. Bates v.
Jones, 131 F.3d 843,847 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Zielasko v. Ohio,
873 F.2d 957,961-62 (6th Cir. 1989)(affrrming district court's
dismissal of First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges to
state constitutional provision that precludes election or appointment
of any person to state judicial office who is seventy years old or
older).
Presidential candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA and presidential
candidate Peta Lindsay both made public admissions against interest, but a
partisan government bureaucrat BOWEN treated them unequally by
removing non Democrat Lindsay from the ballot. Federal courts side with
APPELLANT BARNETT's arguments that the lower court was required to
act in the State's interest to remove constitutionally unqualified presidential
candidates from the ballot. As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining
of RESPONDENTS's demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT
BARNETT's prayer for relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(D) COURT ERRED IN RULING CONGRESS IS THE SOLE JUDGE
OF ARTICLE 2 ELECTION PROCESS AS TO INELIGIBILITY,
STARE DECISIS OF 3
RD
DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY,
APPELLANTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA FAIL
TO REBUT
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 16
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
BARNETT argues that the Court erred when it claims in the Minute
Order a alleged exclusive power of Congress to be the sole judge of the
Article 2 election process as to ineligibility cited (AA 2:405);
In Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 647,661, the Court of
Appeals held that the California Secretary of State was under no
"ministerial duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential
candidate is constitutionally eligible to run for that office". The
Court explained that federal law provided the appropriate remedy
through an objection to electoral votes in Congress under Section 15
of Title 3 of the United States Code. Because this remedy existed,
the Court held that a writ of mandate could not be issued to compel
the California Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of a
presidential candidate.."
APPELLANT's AOB argues well that this is a fallacy not based on fact
or law, and refers the court there, but also emphasizes that the 3
rd
District
Court's opinion that Congress is the sole judge of presidential eligibility
flies in the face of the Separation of Powers by eliminating the power of the
judiciary to interpret the law and the State's right to run elections. This
opinion of the court is not based in law, so stare decisis does not apply
regarding argument that Congress is the sole arbitrator of presidential
eligibility. Pursuant to the Mcpherson v. Blacker ruling, an Alabama
statute (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) to require candidates for
presidential electors to pledge to vote for the presidential nominee chosen
by the party and require removal of electors who would not make this
pledge was allowed to stand - there also proving the power of the State
legislature to decide on matters over ballot access.
The 20
th
Amendment which mandates Congress remove a "President
elect shall have failed to qualify," but this is only a remedy after a
determination of ineligibility would have been made. It is the Judiciary that
interprets the law, while Congress would be the enforcer of such a finding.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 17
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(E)APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, ACTUAL BIAS, AND
UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER LAW BY STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND LOWER COURT, RESPONDENTS
FAIL TO REBUT
APPELLANT BARNETT contends the State Attorney General Kamala
Harris committed fraud on court in their Demurrer argument to dismiss
Petitioner's writ. They acted under color of law by acting with extreme
bias for Democratic presidential candidate OBAMA and the Democratic
party, while arguing for removing from the ballot a non-Democrat Peta
Lindsay for presidential ineligibility - her public admission against interest
is the same ilk of candidate OBAMA's admission against interest.
APPELLANT BARNETT asks court if Kamala Harris' and APPELANT
BOWEN's acting under color of law in extreme bias and going against
California and U.S. Constitutions is sanctionable?
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
F) CEC § 6901 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE
BECAUSE IT PREVENTS SECRETARY OF STATE FROM
FULFILLING mSIHER DUTIES AS CmEF ELECTION OFFICER
BARNETT does not agree that CEC § 6901 is controlling or even
relevant to PETITIONER's FAP as the PETITIONERS filed before
BOWEN's duty under EC § 6901 as Secretary of State was performed. In
its order sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers, the lower court stated that
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 18
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
CEC § 6901 is not unconstitutional and is not unenforceable because the
Secretary of State does not have a legal duty to   t   ~ i n   the eligibility of
candidates for President of the United States before their names may be
placed on the ballot (AA 2:391). The CEC § 6901 states the following:
Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section
7100,7300,7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of
State its certified list of nominees for electors of President
and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of
State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her
nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall
cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice
President of the several political parties to be placed upon
the ballot for the ensuing general election. (Elections Code
§ 6901)
The 3
rd
District Appellate Court erroneously took away the States right
to run elections, to include federal elections and have created a loophole for
constitutionally unqualified candidates of major parties to achieve ballot
access by not even having to attest that they are legally qualified. They
also give extreme power to political parties when there is no safeguard in
place that will force the party to act under the laws of California and the
U.S. Constitution when selecting their candidates for office. It is the
STATE's that were given the awesome power to orchestrate elections, not a
political party that has no statutory liability, and there is no settled law to
support this arbitrary and capricious behavior of a State officer to
discriminate against one party over another violates Equal Protection
guaranteed under the 14
th
Amendment.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 19
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
In addition there is an evil step mother to CEC § 6901, which is CEC §
6041, which is also unconstitutional as it promotes capricious behavior
based upon party affiliation and it promotes fraud as it removes the
requirement for certain party candidates to affirm they are qualified for the
office they seek. This leads to unequal treatment under the law as seen by
RESPONDENT BOWEN's action in removing a non Democrat
presidential candidate from the ballot for the same infraction that candidate
RESPONDENT OBAMA had made. CEC § 6041 is another ministerial
duty for the Secretary of State to add candidates of certain parties to the
primary ballot at only her discretion. If Bowen "lawfully" has discretion to
add and remove candidates in the primary, why could she NOT remove a
candidate that is NOT constitutionally qualified from the general election
ballot? If for example, a criminal breaks into your house and takes up
residence while on vacation, is he entitled to stay because you weren't there
to kick him out before he started living there? APPELLANT BARNETT
would include a Cause of Action to deem CEC §6041 unconstitutional and
unenforceable if given the opportunity to amend complaint.
CEC § 6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a
candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she
has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or
recognized throughout the United States or California as
actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for
President of the United States.
..
The effectively one party Democratic Party system of California has
even made it such that their Presidential candidates don't even have to sign
under penalty ofperjury that they are legally qualified to be porus, so
NOT to create a fraud on the citizens of the State and create a distance from
criminal fraud as no one from the party nor the candidate has to attest that
said candidate meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
..
Page 20
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
Ironically, because ofthe 3
rd
District Court of Appeal, and others like it
around the country that don't believe in defending tile Constitution, the
courts have helped produce the most "absurd result" of all- we have a
British citizen controlling our country and our military after our Founders
fled Monarchial slavery and tyranny of feudalism. King George must be
laughing in his grave as he has gotten his revenge. The "elite" political
system rules as they see fit, not how the Constitution was written. Weare
no longer a nation of laws, but of tyrannical men and women ruling us how
they see fit.
RESPONDENT OBAMA has created in his illegal reign insurmountable
debt mostly going to foreign banks that cannot be paid back by American
citizens for generations. Obama has taken away millions of citizens'
healthcare plans with his ironically named Affordable Care Act which the
American middle class cannot afford. Many of these people will not be
able to get the medical care they need for themselves or their children. This
is not short of criminal manslaughter and possibly pre-meditated murder as
Obama knew millions of American would lose their healthcare.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/kids-with-cancer-Iose-
insurance-due-to-obamacare/
The joke is that the poor already received free healthcare through
Medicaid and hospital charity care which is now destroyed by
RESPONDENT OBAMA. It is only the working poor American citizen
middle class that has not benefitted and are now getting further gouged
paying higher premiums to global insurance companies - many times forced
to pay for services they do not want or need. The power to tax is the power
to destroy. In addition, to the fleecing of the middle class, there is a
tyrannical invasion of privacy with the government being involved with
"healthcare". http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-
admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 21
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
This is analogous to the "Enabling Act" from 1930s Berlin. The Central
government became the repository of data about all tierman citizens. They
knew who was physically or mentally incapacitated (remember how a
gassing truck pulled up to a sanatorium in Limburg, told the mentally and
physically handicapped children they were going for an outing, and
exterminated them all at once!); they knew who opposed them and
appeared at their doors too. Stalin used his network of spies to imprison
and murder millions of political dissidents. RESPONDENT OBAMA's
spying on everyone through the NSA actually gives him and his party the
information they need to use political persuasion by blackmailing
Congressmen, judges, wealthy individuals, political operatives, foreign
allies, etc. .,
Ironically, the State of California legislature used their State right to
nullify the section of RESPONDENT OBAMA'S NDAA (National
Defense Authorization Act) which "legalizes" the taking away of U.S.
citizens' civil rights. OBAMA has during his illegal reign listed Veterans,
Christians, and those that believe in protecting the civil rights of unborn
citizens as terrorists. This threatens U.S. citizens 1st and 3
rd
and 4
th
Amendment rights. These citizens can now be targeted by OBAMA's
government as terrorists that could then lose their right to due process
before being unlawfully executed by the government.
As under King's rule, those loyal to the king   ~ richly rewarded,
OBAMA gives no bid contracts to his political friends. Valerie Jarrett's
(OBAMA's Iranian born Chief of Staff) daughter, Laura, and son in law
work for CGI the company that produced www.healthcare.gov. Although it
is not widely successful at selling insurance, it is very successful at
collecting personal financial and medical data on Americans for Obama and
his political operatives. They can and will use to destroy opposition as they
have already proven in the IRS's tyrannical behavior toward conservative
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 22
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
groups. CGI was also awarded HUD contract to assist in the distribution of
$1.7 billion in relief for Hurricane Sandy. -
At least California Democratic legislators finally drew the line to
RESPONDENT OBAMA'S tyranny oftaking away U.S. citizens 14
th
Amendment Right of due process of law under the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA).
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(G) COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED PETUIONERS DID NOT
STATEACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER
CCP § 1085, RESPONDENT BOWEN WRONGLY ARGUES STAR
DECISIS APPLIES HEREIN
RESPONDENT BOWEN states the following in her brief at page XX;
Moreover, it is well established that traditional mandamus does not lie
to control an official's exercise ofdiscretion, but only to compel an
official to perform a ministerial act within the meaning of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1085, subdivision (a). (See, e.g., Common Cause v.
Board ofSupervisors (1989) 49 Ca1.3d432,442; Kavanaugh v. West
Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Ca1.4th911,916
["A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to perform
in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate oflegal authority
and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such
act's propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exist."].)
RESPONDENT BOWEN does not have discretion as Secretary of State to
not enforce election laws. She is not allowed to have an opinion that she
should not enforce election laws because she deems the act of enforcing
election law to have impropriety. In using the Kavanaugh v. West case in her
defense she deals with a double-edged sword that more properly sides with
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 23
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
BARNETT's argument that BOWEN was not allowed by her mandate oflegal
authority to enforce election law to allow a Constitutionally unqualified
candidate on the ballot when she knew ofthe facts that Candidate OBAMA
was born a British citizen and could not be a U.S. Natural born citizen. This is
a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.
According to Government Code 12172.5. (a) The Secretary of State is the
chief elections officer ofthe state, and shall administer the provisions ofthe
Elections Code. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficiently
conducted and that state election laws are enforced.
The writ of mandate is to compel the performance of an act which the law
specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from and office, trust or station... "
RESPONDENT BOWEN as Secretary of State has As CCP 1085 states
CCP 1085 (a)A writ of mandate may be     u ~ by any court to any
inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the
performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission
of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the
party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded
by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.
Furthermore, she has a ministerial duty to be named as a party and
respond to this Writ of Mandate according to CEC § 13314.
Additionally, APPELLANT BARNETT argues that the petition under
CEC § 13314 is NOT a "traditional mandamus" action because the code
dictates that the petitioner MUST file a WRIT OF MANDATE to seek
relief. It does NOT state that the State or one of its efficers had to fail at
performing a ministerial duty. Simply the cause of action is that a mistake
was about to be made on the ballot, the mistake being that presidential
candidate Obama a non Consitutionally qualified candidate would be added
to it.
Furthermore if the court were to try to add a civil procedure requirement
to CEC § 13314, this petition is more reminiscent of CCP § 1094.5 as
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 24
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
RESPONDENT Bowen made an administrative decision to add
RESPONDENT OBAMA to the ballot even after fQJ;lIlal election
complaints were made by PETITONERS regarding Obama's ineligibility.
Regarding the lower courts CCP § 1085, BARNETT emphasizes that
the Cause of Action was that an error was about to be made on the ballot
and filed under CEC §13314 because Respondent Candidate OBAMA is
not constitutionally qualified to be president and Congress has proven too
political and inept to act on this usurpation and no court in California or
higher court have definitively ruled on candidate Obama's eligibility under
existing American common law.
The existence ofCEC § 13314 proves that the State (BOWEN as Chief
of Elections) has/had a ministerial duty to review and correct the ballot for
-
errors, because it is required that the Secretary of State be named as a
Respondent or Party in Interest.
RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA, and BOWEN
have both treated this action as if it is a traditional mandamus action when
all things considered this could be considered an administrative mandamus
action under CEC § 13314. In fact, CEC§ 13314 itself offers an
administrative remedy by allowing a complaint, and then consequently a
ruling by the court.
The recent ruling of Fuller v. Bowen supports this line of reasoning as
Fuller brought action under § 13314 to challenge a candidate that she did
-
not believe to be eligible under the law. The lower court heard the
complaint and no mention was made by court that SOS Bowen (the same
APPELLANT BOWEN) did NOT grant demurrer based on CCP § 1085
AND an unfulfilled ministerial duty.
Regarding CCP § 1094.5, the court seems to have the flexibility to judge
whether this would be a mandamus under CCP § 1094.5 or CCP § 1085.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
--
Page 25
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
"Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is the appropriate standard
of review where the challenge is not to the awinistrative proceeding
per se, but to the decision being in violation of a duty under the law.
Liberally construing Petitioner's claims, the Court views them as
challenging the decisions of Respondent as violations of duties
imposed by law."A traditional writ of mandate under section 1085 is
brought to compel the performance of a legal, usually ministerial
duty.*fn5 In contrast, the purpose of an administrative mandamus
proceeding under section 1094.5 is to review the final adjudicative
action of an administrative body.
The final adjudicatory action of RESPONDENT BOWEN was to keep
candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA on the ballot after APPELLANT
BARNETT had made a formal election complaint to BOWEN, but never
received a reply. However, another original ad hoc group petitioner had
 
received a reply that no law was broken and they would not investigate.
The affirmative action by BOWEN after a formal election complaint was
made regarding excluding candidate OBAMA from the ballot- after she
weighed "the evidence of the complaint" more closely conforms to an
administrative mandamus not the traditional writ the lower court and
RESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA champion as their right to not
decide the case on the merits. In Jacobson v. Portola Valley, the court
discusses the difference between mandamus actions and the courts power to
decide. Jacobson v. Town ofPortola Valley, No. Al14960 (Ca1.App. Dist.l
10/18/2007)
-
"A traditional writ of mandate under section 1085 is brought to
compel the performance of a legal, usually ministerial duty. *fn5 In
contrast, the purpose of an administrative mandamus proceeding
under section 1094.5 is to review the final adjudicative action of an
administrative body."
Further..
"Jacobson purported to bring her writ petition under the
traditional mandamus procedure set forth in section 1085. However,
the styling of her petition is not determinative: "Although petitioner
brought this proceeding under section 1085, this court can treat it as
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 26
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
if it were brought under section 1094.5, if section 1094.5 applies."
(Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990r222 Ca1.App.3d 1115,
1125.) The Town claims that this action is most properly
characterized as one for administrative mandamus because the
Town's council was acting in an adjudicatory capacity when it
approved the TSM and SDP in 2005."
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
(H) COURT ERRED IN RULING SECRETARY OF STATE DOES
NOT HAVE MINSTERIAL DUTY TO VET PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
-
APPELLANT BARNETT brought mandate in question using CEC
13314 and there has not been an appellate ruling so Star Decisis does not
apply like RESPONDENT OBAMA alleged.
BOWEN has proven once again in practice that not only does the
Secretary of State have the power to vet presidential candidates for
constitutional qualifications, but she has the power to remove candidates
from the ballot as she had done with non Democrat Peta Lindsey, Peace and
Freedom presidential candidate. (See AOB page 23 at Debra Bowen
rejoins;.) Lower court followed 3rd District ruling in Keyes v. Bowen, but
failed to consider 3rd District Court ruling of Fuller-e. Bowen which is in
line with PETIONERS arguments that the SOS has a ministerial duty to
ensure ballot access is to constitutional standards, as previous California
Secretaries of State have done by removing other constitutionally
unqualified candidates.
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 27
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
(I) COURT ERRED BY NOT GIVING JUST CONSIDERATION TO
FRAUD RELATED TO OBAMA'S IDENTITY DOCUMENTS IN ITS
DECISION TO SUSTAIN DEMURERS BECAUSE PUBLIC
INTEREST OF FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS AND PROTECTING
CONSTITUTION OUTWEIGHS CIVIL PROCEDURE AND
SUPPORTS MISPRISION OF FELONY, TREASON
In regarding, competent authority Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph
Arapio's report of document and identity fraud regarding OBAMA, court
should have weighed this evidence in its decision to sustain demurrer. As
"the department, in fulfilling this informational role, was obligated to
provide a fair presentation of the relevant facts. Sin,* plaintiff specifically
alleged that public funds were expended for "promotional," rather than
"informational," purposes, his complaint stated a valid cause of action, and
the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer. If plaintiff proves
the allegations of his complaint at trial, he will be entitled to at
least a declaratory judgment that such expenditure of public funds was
improper, and, perhaps, injunctive relief as well. Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.
3d 206,551 P.2d 1. In this instance the expenditure of public funds would
be the fraudulent presidential ballot with at least one NOT constitutionally
qualified candidate - Barack Obama- and the ensuing election. The
declaratory judgment being that OBAMA did not win, but the
....
constitutionally qualified candidate with the second highest votes did win.
This would re-establish faith in elections and the judiciary, because they
would have proven that no man is above the law.
Is it not misprision of felony fraud and misprision of treason (under 18
U.S.C.4 and 18 U.S.C. 2382 to knowingly do nothing while a Presidential
usurper who has foreign allegiances and who may not even be a U.S.
citizen runs our country into the ground with debt and waging wars?
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 28
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining mRESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
J. DEMAND FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
IS NOT MOOT
The lower court did not rule that BARNETT's case is moot, and the
controversy is still ongoing and will continue on forever until courts justly
rule on facts regarding OBAMA's constitutional ineligibility. This court
can still issue a writ of mandate and a declaratory judgment that
-
RESPONDENT OBAMA was NOT the legal winner ofthe 2012 election
because he does not meet the Constitutional qualifications for President,
and therefore name the rightful winner, and then file with the Electoral
College members and the judiciary committees of both houses of the U.S.
Congress. Also, this case can be referred to a non-partisan special
prosecutor to further investigate the forgery crime against the citizens of
California. Their findings can then also be shared with the same judiciary
committees.
A declaratory judgment will clarify the legal definition of a U.S.
NATURAL born citizen as it pertains to presidential qualifications so that
future candidates will know and understand the reqUirement which will
help ensure that such a massive fraud is NOT committed against the
citizens of California again. Also, hopefully this will lead to legislation that
will require that all future presidential candidates (all candidates) provide
certifiable, non-forged proof that they were born within the United States to
citizen parents to help ensure that future Presidents have sole allegiance to
the United States, not Britain, Kenyan, Indonesia, and so on.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 29
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
· The harm is ongoing as CANDIDATE RESPONDENT OBAMA was
illegally declared the winner of the California Electoral votes. The legal
tenant that ongoing injury overcomes mootness was supported by the
Supreme Court inHicklin v. Orbeck (No. 77-324) 565 P.2d 159.
"The invalidation of the one-year durational residency requirement
does not moot the case, since a controversy still exists between the
nonresident appellants, none of whom can qualify as "residents"
under the statutory defmition, and the appellees, state officials.
Those appellants thus have a continuing interest in restraining the
statutory discrimination favoring state residents. P. 523."
The case has continuing public interest. In the California case Horneffv.
City and County ofSun Francisco (2003) 2 Cal.Rptf.'3d 79'82, the court's
reasoning would agree with BARNETT that petition is not moot because of
continuing public interest.
"The City's appeal is arguably moot because the election has already
taken place and Proposition A passed. Nevertheless, this court has
the discretion to consider the merits if the appeal presents a question
"'capable of repetition, yet evading review'" or the issue is of
continuing public interest. Respondent urges us not to apply this
well-established exception to the mootness doctrine in this case. She
argues that our prior decision in Brennail, supra. 125 Cal.App.3d 87,
177 Cal. Rotr. 677 has settled the law concerning the requisite
contents of a digest prepared by a Ballot Simplification Committee
and the standard to be applied in determining whether a judicially
ordered revision is appropriate. We decline to deem the case moot.
The issue raised is a matter of continuing public interest, and the
arguments in this appeal demonstrate the need to clarify our holding
in Brennan." (Emphasis by BARNETT)
Finally, the harm caused to California electorate is repeatable as
California and other courts are evading review and more not
constitutionally qualified candidates are gearing up to run for President.
For example, Senator Ted Cruz, who was born to a Cuban citizen father
and U.S. mother, is actively looking to run for President and Democratic
operatives attack him for this. Senator Marco Rubio born to 2 Cuban
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
...
Page 30
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
citizen parents was/is considering running for President. Marco Rubio like
Wong Kim Ark was born only a citizen under the 14
th
Amendment to non-
U.S. citizen parents. The court NEVER ruled that Ark was a U.S. natural
born citizen, they only ruled him a citizen. (United States v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) This ruling came out after the Minor v.
Happersett ruling (1875) whichstated Minor, who was born in U.S. to two
citizens, was a Natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that exception to the mootness
doctrine is an injury "capable of repetition yet evading review." See
generally Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (19Jrl) 219 U.S. 498 and
Sosna v. Iowa (1975) 419 US. 393.
As a reminder Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d 206,551 P.2d 1 states, "If
plaintiff proves the allegations of his complaint at trial, he will be entitled
to at least a declaratory judgment that such expenditure of public funds was
improper, and, perhaps, injunctive relief as well."
The 20
th
Amendment allows for removal of President for disability. Not
meeting the eligibility requirements for the office of the President under the
Constitution is a disability. A declaratory judgment by a State court could
lead Congress to look at this option and remove Obama and replace him
with his natural born citizen Vice President Biden.
--
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS's
demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT's prayer for
relief within the Conclusion should be granted.
K. SPECIAL STANDING OF APPELLANT BARNETT CLARIFIED
APPELLANT BARNETT had publicly declared in AOB pages 7 & 22,
that she is a Private Citizen with extra-statutory standing. Neither
RESPONDENT BOWEN nor QBAMA responded or argued against this
truth made known to the court.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
-
Page 31
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
Appellant BARNETT's Agent wishes to clarify her status before
this Appeal Panel as there is a substantive judicial notice to be
considered with regard to her non statutory status in that Pamela
Denise Barnett © in esse and sui juris is the sole secured beneficiary
agent and attorney-in-fact for the debtor business trust organization
PAMELA DENISE BARNETT,1 AFFIANT is both unique and apart
from the status of the other Plaintiffs as each is merely the Surety-
Indenture to his respective debtor beneficiary entity owned with title
by the respective State of birth and or domicile herein represented by
their counsel.
Documents filed with a Georgia County registrar changed my
status from that of an surety-indenture to the debtor who was an
enemy combatant on conquered territories as defined since the
National Emergency martial process that replaced the civil process by
the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Proclamations: 2038 of March
5, 1933 for an emergency session of Congress, 2039 of March 6, 1933
declaring a bank holiday and 2040 of March 9, 1933 for a continual
national emergency then validated by Congress with the Amended
-
The Trading with the Enemy Act of1917 (40 Stat. 411, enacted 6
October 1917, codified at 12U.S.C. § 95a et seq.) that put American
citizens into perpetual servitude on March 9, 1933, and that until this
day is renewed annually as an act of enormity that takes the
debtor/surety tax payments along with collateral property and labor,
for investments in the government influenced markets serving
the Vatican, via the United Kingdom, Creditors to the 1933 United
States Bankruptcy Debt Reorganization Plan. Dr. Karen Hudes,World
Bank attorney for 20 years, http://kahudes.net/about-us/ ,
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
..
Page 32
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
(http://www.youtube.com/wa ch?v=gHVgRgYdCsQ) The same
Creditors who prefund purchase all of the Debtors' Federal tax cash
flow paid annually through the Creditors' Internal Revenue Service
based upon the expectation of lifetime (65 years) income of every
debtor I surety-indenture payment to the Creditors' trustees for the
ongoing U.S. bankruptcy debt reorganization plan implemented in
1933.
APPELLANT BARNETT! has affirmed or sworn all of these
-
documents and they are available for court at Exhibit 1.
• AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH Notice of Rescission of Signatures of
Suretyship-NUNC PRO TUNC-- with 2 pages affirmed October
5,2013
• Commercial Securi A reement - witnessed wi 4 pages affirmed
October 5, 2013
• UCC-l Financial Stateme .t registered with the Secretary of State
of Kentucky with file 2013-2663177-78.01 on September 5, 2013
• NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION filed and
recorded in Clerk's Office.September 3, 2013--BPA BOOK 30
Pages 29 thru 32
That unlike my fellow Plaintiffs, my secured sole beneficiary
status history is germane affirmative judicial notice herein for the
panel to consider for provision of civil process as I am entitled to
under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and
substantive due process guarantees rather than martial process
rendered to the other plaintiffs I appellants herein:
a) That American National citizens, Public citizens (artificial
-e-
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 33
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
persons) and Private citizens (natural persons), are protected by
the federal government via Section 1 ofthe 14
th
Amendment
after 1868.
b) The artificial personlPublic U.S. citizen attached to every 14
th
Amendment natural personlPublic U.S. citizen is a creation of
each State government via a Birth Certificate on file in the State
of the natural person's birth. The name of this artificial
personIRoman persona is in all capital letters and termed
-
"Capitis Diminutio Maxima." This all-caps name is a "nom
de guerre" (name ofwar) for the Roman persona/Public U.S.
citizen to be treated as an enemy of war by every Emergency
War Powers court. Further, the name tag of every American
soldier is in all capital letters, also indicating his name of war.
Thus, the all-caps name is used for both soldiers and enemies
captured in war publically residing in the states deemed mere
conquered territories by the defacto Military Government in
Washington, D.C.
c) All income ofthe artificial personlPublic n.s. citizen, for
which the individual 14
th
Amendment Private U.S. Citizen is
subordinate Surety, may be income/excise/privilege taxed. All
income of the artificial person derived from any source
whatsoever may be "war taxed" save those sources exempted
by the Congress or "mandatorily excepted"---the "Church" and
its "integrated auxiliaries."
d) That historically the dejure Federal US Citizen of the Republic
of the United States status became aNew Status in 1868 when
the prior Federal U.S. Citizenship becamqj-Iational U.S.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 34
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
..
Citizenship.
e) That Americans transitioned from being first citizens of our
state and thereby citizens ofthese United States (Article IV,
Section 2), with privileges and immunities that included
common law rights on a Federal Level, including the First Eight
Rights ofthe Bill of Rights, to being first Citizens of the
United States and thereby Citizens of the State wherein they
Privately resided at Common Law (14
th
Xinendment, Section
1), with Privileges and Immunities with NO Common Law
Rights on a Federal level;
f) There was a loss of Common Law Rights in 1873 as
Fundamental Rights/Common Law Rights, when the Supreme
Court declares Fundamental Rights/Common Law Rights ARE
NOT Privileges and Immunities ofNew National U.S.
Citizenship (1); and
g) Further, that the New Status went to Contract in 1906, when the
National 14
th
Amendment US Citizen becomes Surety for the
-
Artificial Person/Martial Persona, became Surety for an
Artificial Public U.S. citizen in Commerce created on the
State level by Contract through Operation of Law, and the
Individual Public U.S. citizens lie dormant until March 9, 1933
and the Individual Private U.S. Citizenship continues until
March 9, 1933.
1 Slaughterhouse cases, 1873. Supreme Court rules privileges and immunities ofthe
new 14
t h
Amendment American citizenship do not include "fundamental rights," do not
include "common law rights" and later, do not include the first eight Bill of Rights,
Maxwell v. Dow (1900); Twining v. New Jersey (1908).
--
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 35
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
h) Further, that the New Status in Contract was activated in 1933
with the above referenced Emergency War Powers
Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, thereby the Individual
Public U.S. citizens created on State Level are NOW SEIZED
as "Booty" of the National Government; Individual Private
U.S. Citizenship absorbed into Public U.S. citizenship; the
Private U.S. Citizen is wedded and attached to Public U.S.
...
citizen; and therefore, the Private U.S. Citizen is now Surety for
Public U.S. citizen and that the altered Citizenship creates
Altered U.S. Jurisdiction
i) Further, the New Status in Contract in Commerce of 1935 as
seized Booty: rendered the Artificial PersonlPublic U.S. citizen
PLACED IN COMMERCE-Public U.S. citizens now
Insured Surety - Private U.S. Citizen can Fight and Pay for
endless war and enrich the creditors (Dr. Karen Hudes, World
Bank: attorney for 20 years, http://kahudes.net/about-us/ ,
(http://www.youtube.com!watch?v=gHVgRgYdCsQ) so that
the Natural Person/l e" Amendment Private U.S. Citizen is
Surety for 14
th
Amendment Public U.S. citizen in Commerce,
and the Artificial PersonIRoman PersonalPublic U.S. citizen
Given a Social Security Number/Tax Identification Number
(reference War is a Racket (1935) by Gen. Smedley Butler). (2)
j) Further, that there was Loss of Federal Common Law Process
2 War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired
United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor
recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his
experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially
benefit from warfare.
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 36
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
-
and Federal Common Law Rights in 1938 when the Natural
Person/14
th
Amendment Citizen loses all Common Law,
Federal common law and Federal common law rights of natural
persons previously protected by u.s. Supreme Court Decisions
NOW OVERRULED by two "Roosevelt Court", Decisions
e.g. Erie Railroad case, 1938 overruled Swift v. Tyson (1842)
. -
and Caroline Products case, 1938 overruled Lochner v. New
York (1905);
k) Further, that the New Status in Contract at War in the 1950
Emergency War Powers Executive Order then activated the
status that governs all In Personam Jurisdiction. Both Criminal
and Civil Jurisdictions, of both Federal and State Courts are
now Military in Process; Courts are Constitutional in FORM,
but Military in SUBSTANCE. These Courts fly Federal and
State Martial Flags with three sides bordered with gold fringe
and or with gold cords and tassels. _
1) AFFIANT contends a child to be a "natural born Citizen" (s)he
must be born in the country to parents who are both either
"natural born Citizens" and or "citizens of the United States" by
naturalization at birth or after birth.
m)AFFIANT on December 10, 1970 was naturally born in the
Republic of Germany on U.S. Army base to U.S. Citizens
stationed with the U.S. Army,
n) AFFIANT, a natural person, became a de jure, natural born
Private United States Citizen on the day of his natural birth
-
pursuant to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 37
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
0) AFFIANT, by operation of law, was pledged as Property for,
wedded to and made Surety for, a de facto, artificial person,
statutory Public United States citizen by means of a
"Certificate of Live Birth" created on February 16, 1971, upon
the filing ofthe trust instrument presented to the Consular
Service of the United States at Frankfurt Germany ;
p) AFFIANT, by operation oflaw, was restored to her former
status of being a Private United States Citizen upon the filing
of a ''Notice of Release Without Consideration" being NUNC
PRO TUNC with the Clerk of Court, Lamar County, Georgia,
on September 3,2013;
q) AFFIANT can eliminate any presumption of fact that Affiant is
Property of, or Surety for, said statutory Public United States
citizen by having the court file this exhibit ''Notice of
Rescission of Signatures of Suretyship-NUNC PRO TUNC"
--
with this Court Clerk herein the State of California, in which
Affiant makes her home, privately residing on the land at
Common Law and not publically residing according to statute;
r) AFFIANT, by virtue of her constitutionally protected status of
being a Private United States Citizen, is as foreign to the
present de facto Emergency War Powers jurisdiction ofthe
United States, the former de jure Common Lawjurisdiction of
the United States (as per Section 1 of the 14
th
Amendment)
having been altered and/or modified into the present de facto
Civil Lawjurisdiction of the United States-by a
congressionally-amended, World War I statute and a
subsequent presidential proclamation, both events transpiring
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 38
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
on March 9, 1933; THEREFORE:
s) AFFIANT is not a statutory public "United States citizen;"
t) AFFIANT is not a statutory public "resident" ofthe United
States;
u) AFFIANT is not a statutory "United States person:"
-
v) AFFIANT is not a statutory "non-citizen national;"
w) AFFIANT is not a statutory public "citizen" ofthe State of
California;
x) AFFIANT is not a statutory public "resident" ofthe State of
California;
y) AFFIANT is not a statutory "resident alien;"
z) AFFIANT is not a statutory "non-resident alien;"
aa)AFFIANT is not a statutory ''taxpayer;''
bb) AFFIANT does not have a statutory ''tax home within the
U.S.;"
cc)AFFIANT is a "nontaxpayer" pursuant to Economy Heating
and Plumbing v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, 589 (1972);
dd) AFFIANT, as a matter ofpublic record, is the Non-
Surety Agent and Attorney-in-fact for the transmitting utility
and Public U.S. citizen "PAMELA DENISE BARNETT;"
therefore Affiant is the beneficial owner of all income derived
from her exclusive use of the NAME of ''PAMELA DENISE
BARNETT," presently under public commercial lien and
copyrighted, copy-claimed and trademarked by Affiant.
-
To recap, the surety- indenture Usurper Barack Hussein Obama
II in esse by his own admission against interest as an exception to the
hearsay rule that his legal father was a British subject when he was
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 39
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
born, is not a "natural-born citizen" (NBC) according to the US
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S 1C5) mandate and
related law, and is not eligible to serve as President and or with such
conflict as the U.S. bankruptcy reorganization executive trustee
established since the March 9, 1933 Presidential.Proclamation when
by operation of law all judicial and administrative process is done by
Military rather than civilian process.
As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of
RESPONDENTS's demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT
BARNETT's prayer for relief within the Conclusion should be
granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, BARNETT respectfully requests in this
conclusion a prayer for relief that this Court reverse the lower court's
judgment ofdismissal after Sustaining RESPONDENTS' Demurrers and
remand the case to the lower court with instructions to order
RESPONDENTS to answer FAP or, in the alternative, with instructions
to provide PETITIONERS leave to amend, or this honorable court rules
on the facts and American common law regarding the presidential
constitutional eligibility ofcandidate OBAMA and issues a Writ of
Mandate to have RESPONDENT BOWEN declare candidate
RESPONDENT OBAMA was not the rightful winner of California
Electoral Votes in 2012 and 2008, that other constitutionally eligible
-
candidates won, and file with the Electoral College and judiciary
committees of both Houses of Congress. Also, RESPONDENT
requests Declaratory Judgment to clarify who is/who is not a
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 40
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
NATURAL born citizen capable of running for President of the
United States to eliminate confusion with the candidates and the
electorate, and/or different and other relief.
I, PAMELA BARNETT in esse, -agentofPAMELA BARNETT,
depose and say under penalty of perjury according the laws ofthe
state of California that the above is true and correct based upon
information and belief.
Dated: 12/2/2013
Signed: Lincoln, CA
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN
American Freeman, in esse
and sui juris,
Self-Represented, In ProPer,
agtG
Page 41
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
CERTIFICATE OFCOMPLIANCE
In pro per Appellant herebycertifies that pursuantto Rule 8.204(c)(1) or
8.504(d)(1) of the CaliforniaRules of the Court, the enclosedBrief of the
Appellant is producedusing 13-pointor greater Romantype, including
footnotes and contains 11,500 words, which is less than the total words
permittedby the rules of the court, Appellant in pro per relies on the word
count of the computer programusedto preparethis brief.
Dated: 12/2/2013 Respectfully Submitted,
.I7.rilV1CLA BARNETT, Agent, Private Citizen
APPELLANT INPROPER
agiO
--
Appeal #C071764 NOONAN V. BOWEN Page 42
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
L Pamela Denise     nnd (I id lh{? StAtt:' Q( Cit1ifnnlii\, inknd H) H'hHTi
to reITner naf%mi (ltir-er;   f'(Jfl}("t"r-,,'{i t\: n'y tnnh (<H ! CliO nf i\C"'ll."lfd
Yf-tM'J,Hi ntJ.t::i}fU('   CiU;;xn by Section ! of the Fourteenth
  h> Constuuuon. and fhAe v 2G1 US 43, 'lA,
1, Pamela Denise Barndt in eese eind   tq,el"n,j/,.r
equitable, in the vuhHc States crcatccr
tbe filinA{If the tru-st Instrument 10 the COfltdM   .:/f the Umted
uie Of:t:d CertifitMe No.: • n=:r1:ified ¥ilh the Consular Re-eort dBirth. Abrood OF A
UNrrEn S'fATES OF i\MF:iHCA No," 01599<>2"
i\(;(;ordjngly, l, PRwdu Denise Barnen in arid {Rtk'arf.<.nf ktri.. g dul.:' JC}-'>.Ql'>e end $iy under
j"'''.1ty oi ,""jltty,
Releasor until {tH'1.... f'ii.)tk>e b k>OH!;d for servlee 01 2351 Sunuet Bculevnrd. S:.dt':· 170·921.
within tht nf flHhdivhlc>tl of (\'l'unty of PJ(Key
NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION
STATe OF CAl,tfi)RNlA )
) MI,
COUlfTV or I'UCEl'l )
n,rnwH tn f.'R">:f tHd u> be Lhi:::; and
with tbe St"::4tK dZ:':,"ihf::·n"l><>: PHO\:"lSI0NS PAHT 14, X-'()\-VEltH,
{)f-' ,APPfHNTMKNTCHAPTER or FO\\TRH Of AVPCHNTMf-C,n
Relensea (.61 kr Dou-c eud Ci)i.AJ release delivery_
1'0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Rdensee
1, f'l-lmth f)tnh"" n'lrnf.>tt in OJ)(l
gmnted Dr tiCnlfcd by the Ccnsntutton
tiJtMfJd
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M

tt
L
1:<
u:
 
it
.;;,
"
Z
t
E
c
h c:
,{

e: .-.
tJ c
:::< .;-t
.
Ei
« "
-x
3;,
":'
:;:
"
Ct:i
t

"i.:. e

E2 W
s: --C.

Q i: -
r::
¥
f/'>
tr:

Z

..

.
0"c,'
C'
1.:.i

;-
;;0:' A
;t.

e.

U <
-e
e: t, 2
"
t;:
E--< :f:': E
,:R
,x
:::J
E
':N
2.
s

\;;,:
C
',( :3: (;i
0,:
?
¢
n
'%;h
f:;:' r:l
s

::=

/7;

E--< ,-;:: s.:
",,:, G,;
';,I
;:.
$: 2

/'i;, :z
i
....
e:
:;<t,
t
t
W

"
>t.
;0
:,,,-,
1
*
(J} ;.,,"

t
«r:
7"

P


.... -:
J-:l r,

;:
..

A
:J lZ
E "l
Q k
:E E
e:
C. ,r.: :;:
e;
..
::i
z:
• .
:>:.: '"•.J

""
K
.c
.;:

1.....1
• C
t
r",.
U;
G
W
t.O
Cit
f:
12
Il
t:C:

E
u 6

f
t
15
(11 E--<
,..:

C
b
.0
rr::
Z
'i;,li
....

In
;,;
?f IJZ if Q
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
.Av"ardimlllY. 1. Barl1wu, iTl esse wlid
;lfJId .keli>fi: zHldet 171mt
l,flll:mt!1u naTndt, lUll.! Nunc ho 'rUIN: eve!) vI'
'!lI'ct:v.ttj(:, pllibtk Mil t,rivlltt,eVi:t by Afii:!Ult(:if) b<thlllf"ftht CahfOlT\iu
tF;1WUltiti"illl Publk Ug chinm"I'A/ttHtA OfiNISE
••••1" cnml©\;! 0'1F<:bmary 1(;" 1971. tlno "PAMEtA OF:;"HSE BARNErr,"
treatltd mduJy 14, 1990;
Thi, AfFmAVrr Of' T1UITU; N'otluol I)f "I $llrlltYlf<bip-
NUNC PRO TUNC lOllvery publi< SIJ'it'mmefll c,X1lr,J,cf· (<<krn\, stlltc, i;Pll!1!ty
enu1'nb re,\A:1;,SIt>l1 ilfitlr>.:vncatilm (}f IWllblk 3ignatmc l)f 1!i!tcly3hip it'"cllldei, hill ill
IW<IhnJted to, the imli:11 j):;,[ ");'1111 idtnli!')(;$11Ufl
i!llmh«', every ilhHvi411111 IUh!'lXf e(WpOIl1I¢ lax r(,ll1m nht,), be II ie4t.nlI, !;ll1te, (nunt)"
ih"diiif ciry: the initinJ",pph"\lMiN, f{1f &:,k%211v" service in tilt Armed F,)fees ('! thcUnit!,d
St,,1e$; every "ppliClllion tor an ir)divioual .;!nvcr'j license, liz.:kndlttilV(w ,';:lle, welJ
  tfri\,tf $:tHih.. :%'sLt?;·e: a pti5J,.j1£m
'Vi wellas every I-;:;UC';: Usi,ed every f01 VOli)'! 115
-"''eH$,"1livery'voser n:gj,-rrnticn card; and every ether plilblii" g';W«ilmeU( ClJ@(mel..  
4116 unklJK1vl.!l, evil!lmdl1!! a
AfrU'>.>\Vll OJllIUrnl: Nwtkenr RelW:%.""i!'n of Sigl1l11WfU wf
NUNt: PRO Tl}NCe:,lcn'±! to every priva {t< DttiitlCl$ CW!lltlfct T'his rexei&:;ion ;»vJ
tCV{)C.illi<Hl ,;jfprtnltt: in;;hxies, hvt hfHX ii!'i!i4e;l tf\ evcr)
4f:lpUe%tI01! for a fXJnk *",j,;oU&l, if;,;,EvkiuqJ unci !:M:;nine,s; (very f(it any ({lm1 of
knd3Jdgng lift vehkh:: in.5ill"U.t1i::>t'.•bU$ineti11r&;urar»C¢\Mld
iJ:"$\w;mcoe; an,1 <tyc.y ,,!btu" il!\{)(Vl'll In$11)'   \ttltlCilVQt
JJ,,;,:f!m priVltti? nf
This AFrmAYfT nn:TH: N"111;C f)f RClW:hxitm {If SigllHltlll"n of
:,,\VNC PRO lTNC is n:ItOl>Cltw In Ih..: dnle 1&. J':l7!. the Uiile t'f:llI:
lilinE;md tcgft5ttl!.1km 'Jfaniillll'i Certilk::Meof UN; H!nn to Ihe C.)!w;ff\t
4
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
Ifl
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
~
  *         . ~ ~
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
00
",,:
~
c:
-: s I
()
o
'"
rn ...
.< c
~
1./
·
l> t
'"
z
£.
"fl
"
"1 Itt
"= ."
"
i,"
Z 2 l:i
'"
'X}
rn ..
~
"
f


~
'"
4
.... . .< z
"
r-
~
'"
0. ~
·
0
.. C>
'2
'I:
C,
§
ce
,
: ~  
%
il: ~
~
'"
z r- ;;l'
'"
r- G'
~
'J:'<
~
'"
m
"
a
-I
e: :;
~
~
W
l>
III
'c
:r -I
I
~
~
c Z<r.
"
,
rn
'r ~
!E
x;,
;:
~ :r rn r-
=:
."
'"
J
d
-I
: ~ J
'"
'"
"
~
0
.e
U
" m
'"
"
n
:;
"'
d-
o
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M

""     ,-,
.«:II.1W41'ofMI'

'.w;h(I"., IJ$. 5l1r#!».'111'1

rnMS CI


NJ
US Jl1ST1CE
931: p sr. &Tf· )<ltA,MPt4' "'.(:A,1J2(Jii:i

fftEDRt{: WOC:(:HER, FOR{'JBAMA. (}nAMA i(\IT:lRICA
fr?Pi;;Ulf re; fUffte'?T><.:W<vA: f'
'!lLi.! S'rIL }(If(l ! "''''''c..cr.
lO&.,,\;;""fGEtat.;;. C{'t, ( i r'
  t!'il;l .1It1:t :;"'4 at ,!h¥


NM'fil. ANfliQNY ESQ, I)Q\Ir'rrK
iJI
P.O.
SACRAMENTO, CA, 94.1A4-2:i;;O
ltol

I (( OOiii't)rOO Q >1X1Jf1'telt ...... "'-Jnti>  
iJi'fO n<,!\( !f}.
Rl:P:LY:BltlEf
it m MIn 1m/!,*erj 'Al'7y'.;;I!roC «Ji:wroe<"t ,::'",,-j,l\t4     
iii    
1';1] Cl:J lhii 'Wi;ti
11(1 r:::I
Atit" I if! ,}f m!iMIJ itl leti*1 itefletl.
lli.i r;.c"'-- r:;"1   '..... ·"..,,"',.. ('w....2.i"
1: •.7 __   :.u...;.t.    
fx.! ,.
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
o Names and addresses of additional persons served and delivery dates and times are listed on the attached page (write
"APP-009, Iiem3b
N
at the top of the page).
APP-009
     
-------T-'--·- ..
I CASE NUMBER:
(e) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
(e) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
(2) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy ofthe document identified above as follows:
(1) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
CASE NAME: NOONAN V. BOWEN
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M
F
R
I
E
N
D
S

O
F

T
H
E
F
O
G
B
O
W
.
C
O
M