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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott Petitioners, v. Debra Bowen individually and officially as The California Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor Sacramento, CA, 95814; Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. Respondents. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.34-2012-80001048

[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT/ ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A
EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING Date: Time: Dept: Judge: March ____, 2012 9:00 a.m. 31 Hon. Michael P. Kenny

Action Filed: January 6, 2012

TO: Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA), The California Attorney General, Edward C. Noonan, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott, Respondents WHEREAS it is alleged by the Ex Parte Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits

23 24 25 26 27 28

annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of an Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent Barack Obama et al. signed

1

1 2 3 4 5

February 15, 2012, that this Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner’s evidence that Barack Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14th Amendment definition rather than a “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Obama is not even “Born a Citizen” in the USA per se, and further alleged supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, concealment of records, admissions against interest under Barack Obama’s control that substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012, and to eliminate the calendar for such purpose in its entirety; WHEREAS it appears that petitioner is a party beneficially interested in this proceeding; and WHEREAS it appears from the affirmed application that Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that an alternative writ of mandate should issue;

NOW THEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately on the receipt of this writ:
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1. That the Court issue an alternative writ in the first instance commanding Respondents to court to conduct a hearing in open court on Barack Obama’s ballot access at the 2012 Election cycle, and to consider all requests by the Petitioners and Respondents as to ballot access of Barack Obama and to continue as been filed. 1A. That the court alternatively issue an alternative writ commanding Respondent to Court to conduct a hearing in open court on Barack Obama release of the August 1, 1961

2

1 2 3 4 5

though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm evidence and the Barack Obama release of evidence as to why he should not be barred from the ballot proving that he is actually a “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents; and 2. That the court issue a Peremptory Writ for Temporary Stay of CA SOS ballot printing until further order become permanent as to Barack Obama;

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2A. That the Court issue an alternative writ instance commanding Respondents to court to conduct a hearing in open court That the court deny the Respondent Obama et al. Demurrer filed February 16, 2012 in its entirety in regards to the January 6, 2012 Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition. 2B. That the court grant a continuance for CA SOS opportunity to amend the

demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March 26, 2012 is decided; 2C. That the court grant a continuance in scheduling on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the Alternative writ. 2D. That the court grant a continuance in scheduling with sufficient reason that would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc. 2E. That the court grant for further and different relief that the Court deems

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

necessary for speedy justice herein.

The writ shall be served on Respondent and Real Party in Interest before ___________, 2012. [The written return, if any, to this writ shall be filed and served by Respondent or Real Party in Interest on or before __________, 2012.]

3

1 2 3 4 5

DATED:

_________________________________ Clerk of the Court By ____________________________ Deputy Clerk

ORDER
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Let the foregoing writ issue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this alternative writ (and a copy of the petition) be served at least _______ days before the hearing on the above order to show cause. DATED: ___________________________________ Judge of the Superior Court

4

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

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

Action Filed: January 6, 2012

That Ex Parte Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of an Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012,

23 24 25 26 27 28

and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner’s evidence that Barack Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14th Amendment definition rather than a “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1,

1

1 2 3 4 5

2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even “Born a Citizen” in the USA per se; and further alleged supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, concealment of records, admissions against interest under Barack Obama’s control that substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012. It is ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby stayed from printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to be held on June 5, 2012 any of the names of the electors slates for the purported candidates for the office of POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance of Respondents or by his / her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted. It is ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby to respond to a subpoena Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm and that Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred from the ballot proving that he is actually a “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents for interim discovery in preparation for the Hearing on ________________

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for CA SOS opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March ___, 2012 is decided. It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for scheduling on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the Alternative writ.

2

1 2 3 4 5

It is ORDERED that a continuance is granted for scheduling with sufficient reason that would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc subject to the Alternative Writ. It is SO ORDERED that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, shall appear or by his / her attorney show cause at the _______, Room _______, of this Court, to be held

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

at the Courthouse, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at _______ o’clock in the ______ noon or as soon as counsel may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the Electoral College requiring that each declared candidate be a natural born citizen. Sufficient cause appearing therefore, let personal service of this order, and the papers upon which this order is granted, upon the respondents Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA), The California Attorney General, Edward C. Noonan, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott, on or before the _____ day of March, 2012 be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or other proof of service shall be presented to this Court on the return date directed in the second paragraph of this order. ENTER ________________________

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________ )
I, Pamela Barnett, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: That Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having duly notified Plaintiffs Edward C. Noonan, along with Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott having affirmed as Ad Hoc registered voters of California, each self represented without an attorney, hereby submits for a Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with alternative writ for an expedited evidentiary hearing on the
Barnett’s Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 1 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) filed February 15, 2012 by Respondents’ counsel Fredric D. Woocher Esq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation is in support of an alternative writ for a expedited

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

evidentiary hearing on the merits of the evidence proffered to date that is sufficient to also require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that a continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule as to the California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s (the State, CA SOS, SOS) Demurrer with Memorandum filed February 16, 2012 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. Hakl, Esq. with return date of April 20, 2012, and that the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented; and further, that the Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writ is heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason that require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc. 1. That as a Preliminary statement Petitioner opposes Respondent Barack Obama’s

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Demurrer proffer of the ridiculous notion that somehow Respondent Obama may speak for the California Secretary of State, which is a complete and total fallacy, to be considered by this Court as a frivolous contention submitted in bad faith, and to suggest that somehow an individual who is not a duly sworn public officer in the state of California may be granted authority of compelling state action against public policy. 2. That on September 31, 2011, the CA SOS, Deborah Bowen issued instructions (see

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

Page 2 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

Exhibit 1) also available at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/juneprimary/pdf/dem-president-2012.pdf to any prospective candidate(s) for the Office of POTUS from the Democratic party in preparation for the June 5, 2012 Democratic Primary. And that the CA SOS Instructions at Part 1 Qualification mandated that any candidate for POTUS be eligible for that office according to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1

specifically meets the quote: “ I. QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 cl. 5 “ 3. That according to the California State Constitution at Article 20 the Oath of office taken
(1)

as a duly elected public officer, in which there is a inherent duty on the part of

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS [ Required Oath of Office ]

[ Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 ] SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. (emphasis added) "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: (emphasis added) (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ____________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." (emphasis added)

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

Page 3 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

the Secretary of State to determine whether President Obama or any other presidential candidate meets the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution; and 4. As far as Petitioner can surmise by reading the code and instructions of the State Legislature and Congress as well as the CA SOS Notice provided to each candidate, shown as Exhibit 1 for the Democrats, is that only Respondent Bowen has the duty as CA SOS

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

under CAEC §6041(2) to select the democratic party candidates for the party as there appears there is no express authority delegated by the CA State Legislature to the Democratic Party per se or any other party for that matter; so it's all of the CA SOS responsibility to create and certify the "the list" of candidates. 5. Petitioner contends that the inherent statutory duties of the California secretary of state are in conflict with regards to verifying eligibility of national presidential candidates as the California Constitution mandates that the Secretary of State uphold her inherent duties which is overseen by the Legislators and Executive to enforce with impeachment. 6. The California Constitution - Article II states:

SECTION 5. The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary whereby the
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. CAEC §6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. Between the 150th day and the 68th day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election. (emphasis added)
2

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

Page 4 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy. (emphasis added)
7. To be a “recognized candidate” the U.S. Constitution, Art II mandates that: “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.” 8. It is a constitutional mandated duty for the Secretary of State to make a determination to place on the ballot “only recognized candidates.”

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

9. Petitioner contends that RESPONDENT OBAMA despite the notice provided to Respondent Obama and his agents to comply with California Election Code and the US Constitution as shown as Exhibit 1, Respondent Obama nevertheless admits he is merely on the honor system of self checking his eligibility states in the Demurrer MOL that quote: ”either President Obama nor his campaign committee have any legal obligation to provide proof of the President's qualifications as a "natural born citizen" to the Secretary of State in order to establish his eligibility to appear on the ballot as a presidential candidate, much less for him to be able to engage in fundraising activities in California.” thereby fails to state which of the duties that Secretary of State fails to apply to him as would apply to any other candidate in the state running for office for ballot access per the California Elections Code and the U.S. Constitution accused of fraud contends there is no check required. 10. That according to California Law that also dictates the duties the Secretary of State, including the duty as chief elections officer of California, to ensure election laws are

25 26 27 28

followed (California Government Code [hereinafter referred to as “CGC] § 12172.5), the duty to investigate election fraud (CGC § 12172.5), and the duty to advise candidates and local elections officials on the qualifications and requirements for running for office.

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

Page 5 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a. 12172.5. The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and shall administer the provisions of the Elections Code. i. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficiently conducted and that state election laws are enforced. The Secretary of State may require elections officers to make reports concerning elections in their jurisdictions. ii. If, at any time, the Secretary of State concludes that state election laws are not being enforced, the Secretary of State shall call the violation to the attention of the district attorney of the county or to the Attorney General. In these instances, the Secretary of State may assist the county elections officer in discharging his or her duties. iii. In order to determine whether an elections law violation has occurred the Secretary of State may examine voted, unvoted, spoiled and canceled ballots, vote-counting computer programs, vote by mail ballot envelopes and applications, and supplies referred to in Section 14432 of the Elections Code. The Secretary of State may also examine any other records of elections officials as he or she finds necessary in making his or her determination, subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 6253.5. iv. The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to assure the uniform application and administration of state election laws.
(emphasis added) 11.Petitioner contends that CA SOS in order to fulfill her duty to advise candidates, there are several documents on the California Secretary of State website informing all who are seeking elected office as to the qualifications and requirements for each elected position. Documents listing the qualifications and requirements are provided for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor; Secretary of State, Controller and Treasurer; Attorney General; Insurance Commissioner; Member of the State Board of Equalization; State Senator and Member of Assembly; United States Senator; United States Representative in Congress; and President of the United States. The SOS currently verifies that every candidate for these positions, except for that of the office of President of the United States, meets the requirements for each respective office is inherent to her oath. 12.Since the CA SOS does have a ministerial duty to verify the eligibility for nearly all of the candidates for office, it is not improper to infer that she also has a ministerial duty

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

Page 6 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

to verify the eligibility of those who are running for the office of President of the United States in a timely manner under the requirements of CAEC § 6041 before the party primary; as election of Federal officers is done at the state level on a state by state basis under the plenary authority of the respective state legislature as a matter of compelling state interest - no Federal elections are Federal other than by related law.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

13.However, Petitioner contends that California Elections Code §6901 is at odds with remainder of the CA SOS’s duties specified in California law before the general election, because this statute directs that the CA SOS must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates. The effect of this statute is that the SOS’s duty to ensure compliance with election law is suspended in favor of some other entity. 14.Petitioner absolutely denies Respondent Obama’s absurd allegation that somehow the Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate in the present case is virtually identical to the Petition Keyes v. Bowen, as the Petition herein is both timely and laches does not apply; and therefore does not suffer from the same fatal defects of a case filed after the general election as was done in Keyes v. Bowen. 15. Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012 before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility of the CA SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express direction from the Legislature, records that Petitioners/Plaintiffs standing has properly accrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012)[41] “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

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

Page 7 of 25

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

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.” AND “Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. AND Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This Court agrees.” (emphasis added) 16.Statute (Section) 13314 fully supports Petitioners’ standing to have this petition heard on the merits and gives this court the full power to grant petitioners’ prayers for relief even without the State having a ministerial duty unfilled as that is not stated as a requirement for relief to the Petitioners. That prior to March 1, 2012, Petitioners did

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

properly allege inter alia that President Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" (NBC) eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS) - not because he was not born in the United States, but because his father was not a U.S. citizen and seek a writ of mandate to compel Secretary of State Bowen to "bar Respondent Obama ballot access in California along with those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming an elector slate for 'the office of POTUS for California." (Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fund Raising ("Petition"), @P18.); and further, 17. The Petition does also seek a "permanent restraining order” barring Barack

Obama or his campaign committee from fundraising in this election cycle, because Respondent Obama is not NBC eligible for the Office of POTUS, spoliates evidence and

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

Page 8 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

committed fraud in conspiracy to avoid detection from investigation of allegiances. 18. That Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama by counsel in the Demurrer

has improperly concluded that Barack Obama “is, of course, a ‘natural born citizen,’ born in the United States to a mother who was an American citizen, and is thus fully qualified to be President under the U.S. Constitution.”

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

19.

The allegation proffered by Respondent Obama’s counsel in the Demurrer

directly contradicts every historical basis with related law to consider Respondent eligible for Office of POTUS when his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother who was married to a majority aged British subject ineligible for U.S. Citizenship would at best be merely considered “Born a Citizen” as the assumption required by the 14th Amendment; and 20. That moreover, subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on

March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release (see Exhibit 2) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD

CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and
crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” with a picture of the Sheriff’s webpage appended (see Exhibit 3) and currently before the Arizona primary now

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit 4) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote: “Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa

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

Page 9 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:. • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “ Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21.

shown as Exhibit 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see Exhibit 5) is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript (see Exhibit 6); and 22. The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2008

proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27,

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 7) as shown by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the

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

Page 10 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do

Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the
foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. 23. That Petitioner in her January 2, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and travel records of Respondent Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) (Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on December 10, 2010 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed “Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah” from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit 8), therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and 24. Further, Petitioner contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the

Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenant, and as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to

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

Page 11 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence. 25. As Further evidence, Petitioner provides additional proof that Respondent

Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit 9). 26. Further, Petitioner opposes Respondent Obama’s contention that this Court

lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners' claims because federal law that with limitation of Article 2 Section 1 establishes the procedures for election of the President, and that somehow the exclusive means of challenging the qualifications of a presidential candidate is to present an objection before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15 is totally preposterous on its face primarily because elections are conducted separately at the state level with original state jurisdiction afforded to the respective state court; and as evidence that Respondent Obama’s contention is obstreperous and offered in bad faith Petitioner offers into evidence the actual response of Congressman in regards to the supposed original duty somehow vested in the Congress is wrong (see Exhibit 10) and is

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

evidenced by the reaction of various Congressmen and US Senate Judiciary Committee: Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14th Amend. and courts on November 11, 2008 wrote:

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

Page 12 of 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 13 of 25

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

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

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

Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on February 6, 2009 wrote:

Petitioner can go on to document further gross negligence on the part of Congressmen and the affect of the willful spoliation and concealment activities of Respondent Obama. 27. Petitioner opposes RESPONDENT Obama’s contention that only the Electors

of his party can decide if he is qualified. Respondent Obama quotes Robinson v. Bowen, (189 Cal. App. 4th at p.661 [supra, 567 F. Supp. 2d at p. 1147]) “Therefore, any challenge

to President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President “is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. - - not to the

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Secretary of State or this court.”” fails to address the fact that Petitioner’s timely filing
before the primary ballot is created renders the contention inapplicable and shoulders the determination for ballot access upon the CA SOS and or the Court herein and that the Congress is not compelled by express law to required proof of eligibility other than that inherent in each member’s oath of office like that of the CA SOS. 28. Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama’s contention of authority to

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

Page 14 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

determine eligibility rests with the electoral college is in conflict with the instructions of the California State legislature that such body has no individual elector discretion other than to merely be a vessel to carry a mandatory vote and as such presupposes other powers that do not exist under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 1
(3)

as

the President and Vice President are chosen by Electors a the state level independently
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia (see Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. 29. In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on the

ballot to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the name of the candidate for President and Vice President, that they, the Elector, have pledged they will support. It is fully understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are the representative "stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some states, in past years, this pledge was informal, and an Elector could still legally cast their electoral ballot for

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2: Method of choosing electors Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (emphasis added)
3

whomever they chose. More recently, some state legislatures and the California State legislature (exercising their constitutional authority to do so) of 26 or so have mandated

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

Page 15 of 25

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

in law that Electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are pledged. 30. Petitioner contends as such the State legislature of California has the plenary

authority and duty with which it may delegate responsibility to electors by express law, and is limited as the SCOTUS expressed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote that these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power." and that based upon information belief does not grant delegation of responsibility as such and may not grant authority to any quasi political party apart from state control and oversight and may not grant such authority without an amendment to the US Constitution; however, at point the legislature does not have authority to relinquish its authority per se in regards to the legislature’s election of a candidate for President / Vice President; and a such the legislature shares its authority to determine by assertion of law the responsibility to determine the eligibility to meet the qualifications of its candidate be in conformance with precedent and historical practice informing the duties of the Executive along with the Secretary of State as artificial person public officers as defined under State Public Officer law; and therefore, such express or implied instruction

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

along with the actions of public officers as well as the inherent powers supposedly granted to the electors are subject to judicial review herein. 31. That Petitioner contends that the Legislature Judiciary and Executive are

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

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

Page 16 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

would require an amendment to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as related law 32.
(4)

, and is absent to date as shown by the Letters in Exhibit 10.

Petitioner also contends that an elector who is bound by law in California (as

in 26 others states) to vote only for the person elected in the advisory vote of the electors at the general election relieves any discretion in that the candidate must be eligible prior

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4

to ballot access; and where the other 25 states the electors may vote for anyone he/she chooses, as such may afford some discretion to determine eligibility. However, there is no binding requirement as a result of the “advisory vote” of the electors at the primary or general election as in California that has to be followed – unless there is a criminal conspiracy to usurp the office of POTUS by design and even as evidence over the last 4 years remains under investigation only in Arizona by one Sheriff with authority Joe Arpaio. 33. Petitioner in light of the evidence herewith contends that for RESPONDENT

Obama to suggest that there is somehow a waiver of the requirements for eligibility just because someone doesn’t verify such still does not change the requirements of eligibility or overcome the requirement to qualify for office, and remains a jackpot situation that automatically vacates the office on its face that then falls back to the individual

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

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. By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be: • natural born citizens - person born in the USA of US Citizen parents, Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162. • at least thirty-five years old • inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years. Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were modified by subsequent amendments: The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet all of the qualifications of being a President; and The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a President from being elected more than twice.

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

Page 17 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

committing the fraud as a criminal matter to be prosecuted in the respective state, perhaps Arizona; and that the failure to meet the qualification for office of POTUS would automatically incapacitate the attempt of usurpation as void ab initio, and thereby requiring according to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 the next person in line with eligibility to meet the qualification
(5)

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5

34.

That as part of the CA SOS duties to make a determination of eligibility SOS

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

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

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

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

Page 18 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

candidates, as shown by the copy of the campaign flier, press release and notarized correspondence regarding denial of ballot access (see Exhibit 11). This is further evidence of arbitrary and capricious action by CA SOS Bowen in her use of discretion to vet and single out POTUS candidates when they are honest and forth coming with their qualifications according to the CA SOS Notice shown as Exhibit 1 uses the criteria of

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

eligibility against everyone except the Democrats and Respondent Obama in particular. 35. Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama has improperly used the false

conclusion drawn by the Indiana Court in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 that was again used by Judge Malihi decision after the 26 January 2012 hearing in Georgia at which sworn testimony on the merits was entered on the record of any court proceeding for the first time since 2008 when the court proceeding started and were systematically blocked for various reasons including lack of standing and being untimely. Petitioner provides the learned legal analysis of Mario Apuzzo Esq., which proves Ankeny as well as the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark do not make Obama a NATURAL Born citizen as Respondent Candidate Obama contends (see Exhibit 12). The Ankeny court only supports that he is “Born a Citizen” naturalized by the 14th Amendment at best. Also Ankeny did not rule that Candidate Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. In dicta, the Indiana Appeals Court puts words in the mouths of the SCOTUS Justices. This

21 22 23 24 25 26
6

absolutely has no control over California or Federal rulings, and in dissecting the Malihi Decision, appended thereafter (see Exhibit 13), that relies upon the Indiana decision. 36. That to the best of Petitioners knowledge based upon a recorded message
(6)

by January 30, 2012 the CA SOS had accepted the candidacy of Barack Obama
Vonage message for Charles Mallon from “Maxine of the CA SOS office on January 30, 2012:

27 28

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

Page 19 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

notwithstanding anything else that has been complained of by Petitioners and others and the CA SOS is acting individually as a partisan Democrat who has instructed her agents to announce the CA SOS acceptance of the Respondent Candidacy and instructed employees to make the following statement by “Maxine” of the CA SOS calling from:19166537635@vm.vonage.com to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) received Mon, 30

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Jan 2012 16:53:05 the recording of the message left Jan 30 2012 08:50:25 AM From: ST OF CA SECRET (19166537635) to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) as follows quote:
"Hi Mr. Mallon, my name is Maxine and I'm returning your call to Secretary of State's office in Sacramento; and you wanted to find out what, ahh what if any action California might take regarding Georgia’s ahh, the state of Georgia's challenge, to Barack Obama's eligibility ahh as a presidential candidate; and ahh as far as I understand our office and the state of California has no plans absent to date to take ahh , I believe the state recognizes him as a legitimate citizen, ahh I mean a candidate where that needs to qualifications and that is based on the Democratic party’s ahh acceptance of his meeting those qualifications. The Party itself is to accept the candidate prior to nominating him so ahh our office accepts what the party ahh puts forth and has no further involvement, thank you for calling our office and have a great day ,bye bye..”

37.

That the Georgia hearing that “Maxine” speaks of was held on January 26,

2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia who on February 3, 2102 rendered a decision shown as Exhibit 13 now on appeal, and with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w 38. The Sworn Witness John Sampson as an expert witness retired INS False

Document Special Investigator at the January 26, 2012 hearing when asked if he would have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said “YES!” 39. That on February 28, 2012, Respondent Obama was added to the list of

25 26 27 28

“Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates” in California, notwithstanding his fraud
http://www.vonage.com/vvv/index.php?message_id=MTYxOTc0MTMxMzktMTMyNzkxMzQyNS0xMzI 3OTQyMjI3OTMyJGtsZ2ExJDop

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

Page 20 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

spoliation and concealment activities now under investigation in Arizona (see Exhibit 14). 40. That Petitioner for the foregoing reasons urges a continuance in the Prerogative Writ case, and were the judge not to rule in Petitioner’s favor, on this Alternative Writ, Petitioner responds to CA SOS Bowen's demurrer main points as follows: a. That to the extent that CA SOS has not investigated the charges of spoliation,

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

concealment, false swearing, fraud that are all matters required as a duty under California Election Code the Petition does not fail to State a Cause of Action against the Secretary of State who has acted individually ultra vires, in a partisan manner in violation of her oath of office and charge given her by the state of California. b. That there is no basis in law without sworn affidavits and substantive proof that a candidate being submitted by the respective party has been duly vetted and meets the criteria of the eligibility requirements under the State and Federal constitutions and related law; and that prior precedents of the SCOTUS must be considered by this court, in that the Secretary of State has not done the minimum due diligence to protect both the interest of the State and the people who are to vote. The preponderance of the evidence provides that there is no legal duty to determine whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President or at least defer to the Judiciary for a hearing and ruling on the merits

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

has never been done to date until this cases filing being timely and properly supported. c. That Petitioner based upon the foregoing evidence and related law underlying the requirement for a prospective candidate and agents are culpable for misdirection and concealment associated with the ongoing fraud to usurp the office of POTUS

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

Page 21 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

again is a compelling State interest in each State of the several States and District of Columbia that conduct the respective individual elections for their respective state representative to the Federal Executive and Congress according has been relegated by Congress for resolution in each State and Judiciary with original jurisdiction in a timely manner, notwithstanding the mirage of purported Federal

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

remedy available as a discretionary option without force of law except in the respective State of the several States with original jurisdiction over elections. d. That Petitioners having filed January 6, 2012 are as timeless as any of the respective candidates and therefore Petitioners’ standing has properly accrued for an evidentiary hearing on the merits with remedy fashioned based upon the authority granted to this Court, and that laches does not apply as relief is available. e. Petitioners' complaint is not barred by the doctrine of laches when in fact the Determination to place the Democratic Candidate on the Primary ballot was only reached on February 28, 2012, and arbitrarily so, contrary to the duty to hear complaints and conduct investigation of ongoing crimes having accrued as done by Respondent Obama and his agents, including the California foreign entity of Obama for America are properly served and named have unclean hands, and have made admissions against interest regarding the so-called birth place and both CoLBs are

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rightly to be deemed forgeries based upon the preponderance of evidence that based upon the inherent duties of the CA SOS and it employees to administer the law were ignored as a matter of partisan bias in violation of their oath of office as public officers to serve and protect the sanctity of the ballot, and f. That the references made by Respondent Obama that the California Democratic Party must be added as a nunc pro tunc Respondent Defendant herein, as a matter

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

Page 22 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

of record is a compelling state interest for this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the evidence presented on an expedited schedule done by no later than March 26, 2012; as the Primary Ballot is to be printed starting March 29, 2012, and although the Democratic primary is moot, as there is only one candidate, nevertheless this matter must be resolved to provide the Democratic Party

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

opportunity to fill the vacancy with a legitimate eligible candidate or otherwise electors would be unassigned at the National convention from California in August. 41. That Petitioner as a matter of time as the essence requests a continuance of

the schedule for the prerogative writ petition, and were this alternative writ not accepted then let this affidavit stand as the response to the CA SOS and Obama demurrers. 42. That Petitioner has not requested this relieve previously as the new evidence

has just become available, and as such must be considered by this Court as a compelling reason for an expedited hearing on the merits of the forged document, false filing by the agents of Respondent Obama and the Partisan activities of a public officer(s) to assist in fraud and continued spoliation of the public record find that Respondent Obama is not eligible to appear on the Democratic Primary ballot starting no later than March 29, 2012 for the schedule June 5, 2012 California primary elections. Those Respondents be ordered to produce documents in response for an expedited hearing on the merits of the evidence.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons based upon new evidence submitted herein, and because there is no express provision of law that directs U.S. Congress and/or electors of the electoral college for California and/or a political party the duty to determine POTUS candidate Constitutional eligibility, the issue of Presidential eligibility remains a plenary matter to be determined by the State Legislature under the U.S. Constitution Article 2

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

Page 23 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

Section 1 paragraph 2. Therefore, the State may not relinquish authority and responsibility it has for the SOS must determine ballot configuration and candidate access. If the State fails to act in this inherent State duty, the Court is empowered, otherwise with original jurisdiction to make a determination of qualification when there is sufficient evidence and proof of a fraud. That PETITIONERS’ have demonstrated that questions of

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the SOS, chief elections officer of the State of California, and that and that this matter was improperly answered with a demurrer because PETITIONERS’ have established that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates eligibility. However, since an actual conflict arises between this duty and the duty to simply place a national party candidate for President on the ballot, PETITIONER respectfully requests that this court grant this Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with Alternative writ of an expedited hearing on the merits along with a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) filed February 15, 2012, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation be deemed sufficient to also require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that a continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule as to the California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s Demurrer with Memorandum filed

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

February 16, 2012, and the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented; and further, that the Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and until the Alternative Writ heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason that require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc.

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

Page 24 of 25

1 2 3 4 5

I have read Ex Parte Pamela Barnett’s Alternative Writ for a Expedited Hearing on the Merits of Evidence and for Continuance in scheduling in response to Barack Obama, Obama for America’s Demurrer to Petitioners’ Petition for a Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising to bar access of ineligible declared candidate(s) for office of President of the United States (POTUS) at the 2012 election cycle with restraint of fund raising of such

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

committees as a matter of imminent harm and irreparable injury with time as the essence, and I know its contents; the facts stated are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge except to those stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be true.

Sworn to before me This ___ day of March 2012

________________________ Pamela Barnett

_____________________ Notary Public

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

Page 25 of 25

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 1

Summary of
Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

I. QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 cl. 5 II. REQUIREMENTS There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a
presidential candidate in the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election:
 by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or  by circulating nomination petitions. A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES 1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. § 60411 Other criteria the Secretary of State may use to determine who is a “generally-recognized” candidate includes, but is not limited to: a. Qualifying for federal matching funds, b. Appearing in presidential public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, or debates, c. Being on other states’ primary ballots as a presidential candidate, d. Actively campaigning in California for the presidency, e. Having a campaign office in California, and f. Advice and input from the chairs of the respective state parties. 2. Between January 7, 2012* (E-150) and March 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State will publicly announce this determination. § 6041

1

All code references are to the California Elections Code unless otherwise stated. 09/30/2011

Qualifications and Requirements Presidential Nomination Democratic Party June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

Page 2

3. The last day a candidate may withdraw from the list of candidates to be certified by the Secretary of State is March 29, 2012 (E-68). §§ 6042, 6043 B. CIRCULATION OF NOMINATION PETITIONS FOR CANDIDATES NOT SELECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OR UNCOMMITTED DELEGATIONS 1. Any candidate not selected by the Secretary of State or any uncommitted delegation desiring to be placed on the presidential primary election ballot shall have nomination papers circulated on behalf of the candidacy. § 6061 2. To qualify for placement on the Presidential Primary Election ballot, the nomination papers of the candidate or uncommitted delegation must be signed by voters who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party equal in number to not less than one percent or 500, whichever is fewer, in each congressional district of the number of persons who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party in the Report of Registration issued by the Secretary of State on January 22, 2012* (E-135). § 6061 3. Each signer of a nomination paper may sign only one paper. The signer shall print his or her name, indicate his or her place of residence, and declare his or her intention to support the candidate or delegation named on the nomination paper. § 6104 4. Each section of the nomination paper shall be delivered to the elections official of the county where the petition was circulated. § 6101 5. The period for circulating the nominating petitions is January 27, 2012 (E-130) through March 24, 2012* (E-73). §§ 6101, 6122 6. The last day to file nomination papers with the county elections official is March 24, 2012* (E-73). § 6122 7. No later than March 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State shall prepare a certified list containing the name of each candidate who is entitled to be voted for on the ballot at the Presidential Primary Election, and the name of each chairperson of a steering committee of an uncommitted delegation who is to be voted for on the same ballot. § 6180

*Asterisked dates indicate that the date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday; if the date is also a deadline, in most cases, it will move forward to the next business day. § 15
09/30/2011

Qualifications and Requirements Presidential Nomination Democratic Party June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

Page 3

III. APPOINTMENT OF STEERING COMMITTEES A. Each unselected candidate and each group proposing an uncommitted delegation is required to appoint a seven-member steering committee and shall appoint one of the members to serve as chairperson. § 6080 B. The chairperson of the steering committee, no later than March 15, 2012 (E-82), shall file with the Secretary of State a statement containing the names and addresses of the members of the committee. § 6081 C. Each steering committee shall be responsible for the circulation of nomination papers of unselected candidates and groups proposing uncommitted delegations. § 6082 IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. The California Elections Code contains various requirements that must be met by anyone planning to run as a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. Prospective candidates and delegates should review these laws well in advance of the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election. For further information, the candidate is advised to consult California Elections Code section 6000, et seq. This code is available on the Internet at the Legislative Counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. B. Prospective candidates and delegates should contact the California Democratic Party at 1401 21st St., #200, Sacramento, California, 95811, for additional duties and responsibilities not specified in the Elections Code or items not filed with either the Secretary of State or county elections officials. C. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office does not provide forms for presidential candidates. D. Because of the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, As Amended, a presidential candidate should contact the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20463, or call toll-free (800) 424-9530 for a copy of the Act, related regulations giving the filing requirements for reporting campaign contributions, and the forms on which to file. E. No filing fee shall be required from any person in order to file nomination papers. IMPORTANT NOTICE This information sheet of presidential candidate qualifications and requirements is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation, or rule. In case of conflict, the law, regulation, or rule will apply. The candidate should obtain the most up-to-date information available because of possible changes in law. § 6146

09/30/2011

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 2

SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Arpaio suspects forgery
March 1, 2012 (Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told

reporters, “A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s longform birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computergenerated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public.” This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility to be president. Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:.

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
1

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

When and Why Sheriff’s investigators became involved In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this investigation. The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his “Cold Case Posse” at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Additional findings by investigators

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
2

Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case. Sheriff’s Investigator Mike Zullo says, “We have also determined during the course of our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their possession.” Sheriff Arpaio added, “A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it.” The Matter of the Selective Service Registration Card Sheriff’s Investigators were then led to investigate President’s Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980. Investigators compared Obama’s card to others filled out in same year and to at least two cards filled out in the same local. The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with selective service. However, investigators note that Obama’s registration card is highly unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, “80” which appears to be an inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.

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

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
3

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

They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized. Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the Registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. “The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said.” If the Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery.” “As I said at the beginning of the investigation,” Arpaio said, “the President can easily put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has.” Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. “Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Arpaio said.

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
4

Conclusive remarks Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office. “I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved,” Arpaio said.

Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
5

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 3

I
CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER
(A.R.S.

2001 1fE t 3

5 16-/!42)

9
Pb! 3: 0 1
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

You are hereby notified that I,

%rack
Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election

am seeking nomination as a candidate for the of of President of the United States from the fi d

Democratic
to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.

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

5046

South

Greenwood Avenue, ~ h i o d ~ oIL 60615 .
of residence (city or town)
(zip)

CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+

Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag a n
Candidate's Post Office Address

,
I

(city or town)

(zip)

8666i9

I

Candidate's Arizona committee information: Chairman's Name Address
(number and street)

1

Don Bivens

1
(city or town)
I

2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, P h o e n i x AZ 85012
(zip)

Telephone

602-298-4200

I

SECRETARY OF STATE
a registered voter in the stete in which Iresi8@7DEC

RECEIVED
13

I

3 0I 2

Q~am
I am not

1
)

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

candidate for the ofice bf President of the United States.

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

i

Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this

I Q o \ I C ? W & ~ ~ ? 20 PJ

My Co+tmissionExpires:

"3

- 31 -

2 0 10

File with: Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Phoenix, A t b n a 85007

Floor

Dffice Revision 8/21/2007

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 4

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Opening Statement:

Page 1 of 10

I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source file was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure 2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed. The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaii—but this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document file. This would account for the transformation of a document containing different color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ).
Green safety paper background

There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White House—it was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points:

Figure 1: PDF file released from White House

 Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan)— not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout.  Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration. This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama’s PDF document.  Layers: A normal scan is a flat file and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer.  Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the file, rotated, and resized.  Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation.  Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in final steps.

Blue background color and no safety paper

Safety paper background with a gray/blue color

Figure 2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned

Figure 3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Page 2 of 10

The OCR Argument Not a Factor!
OCR—which stands for Optical Character Recognition—will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text. After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not. Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found. Figure 4 shows the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box, and even though the word “Live” exists in the Certificate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that “no matches were found.”

Search word in Find box

No text found in file

Figure 4: Search for text is not recognized—No OCR applied

When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama’s PDF file does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the Document Properties dialog box. Font-based text can be created after a file has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text. Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box. Figure 7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box. The word “Live” is found and highlighted within the Certificate of Live Birth title.

Document Font Properties of original PDF file

Figure 5: Font Properties of Obama’s PDF file

Search word in Find box Document Font Properties after OCR Text Recognition

Text found in OCR file

Figure 6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition

Figure 7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Introduction to Basic Terms
Paint strokes—no noise

Page 3 of 10

Let’s briefly examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap

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

Image noise

Figure 8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise

Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing
Figure 9 offers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges. Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanning—or not at all.
Noise

Figure 9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing
No noise

Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with image manipulation. The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise. A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white image—no color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or off—white or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn’t be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone values—not black or grayscale.

Bitmap edges are jagged

Anti-aliased edges are smooth

Figure 10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Scanner Chromatic Aberration
Cool blue color at the upper edges

Page 4 of 10

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

Warm red color at the lower edges

Figure 11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration

Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency in text—and no chromatic aberration

Figure 12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level
Color variation evidence of manipulation

Applying the Terms Reviewed
A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specific areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts. Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter “R” mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12. The white halo effect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the official stamp text—”TXE” instead of “THE.” While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds significantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that affect both sides of the “H” character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an “X.” The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the “Alvin” signature that has been referred to as a “happy face.” Figure 14 offers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka’s stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no “happy face” markings in the “Alvin” signature. The “Ph.” spacing between the “P” and “h” is different in both signature images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layer—no signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be reflected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texture—the ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14—is absent from the Obama PDF.

Alvin’s signature suddenly develops a smiley face Spelling error on stamp Green text color values

Figure 13: Examples of text inconsistencies
No spelling error

Alvin’s signature without smiley face?

Figure 14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Page 5 of 10

Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimized
Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama’s PDF. The layers in Obama’s PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation. A simple definition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce file size. As stated—optimization can cause layers—but in the case of optimization; the process of how the document is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms. Thus, there are certain predictable patterns. Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-based and Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-based which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based program—meaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates differently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as paths—the mathematical equations that define the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to define the outer boundary border of that object. This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image). The AP file version of Obama’s PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:
Multiple links

Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers:

Outside border edge boundary path One flat image layer

One Link One flat image

Outside border Path

Figure 15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior

Clipping Path layer

Multiple sub-layers

Outside border path Clipping Path

 boundary edge Path—the blue border surrounding the image A  And the flattened Image Figure 16 shows a crucial difference in the number of layers displayed in Obama’s PDF file (compared to the AP file): Obama’s PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub-layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location of the clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It’s presence within the file and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also reflects image manipulation.
Scroll box

Figure 16: Multiple layers and links in Obama’s PDF

One bitmap sub-layer at top No logic to layer object decisions

Another crucial difference in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroll box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to offer a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view). Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles.

Huge amount of links Scroll box Insane number of color sub-layers

Figure 17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied

Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; but the reverse is true in Obama’s PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Visibility icon

Page 6 of 10

The Clipping Mask Path
Let’s return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defining parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape can be used as a clipping path—in this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure 18 defines an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefit derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide different parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized file—it will never hide information. Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is first opened—all other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separately—the clipping mask group needs to be released—or ungrouped. Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask offers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundary—proof of image manipulation.

Collapsed icon

Clipping Path

Figure 18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask
Release Clipping Mask Group

Expand icon Clipping Path

X-Ray Scanner Vision
Figure 19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed
First link actively selected Layer visibility on

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

Layer object path White pixels display

Top layer selected

Figure 20: Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels
First link deselected Layer visibility off

Layer object path turned off White pixels disappear: Pattern pixels uninterrupted

Figure 21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Selected active links

Page 7 of 10

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

Selected active layers Date stamp Certification stamp

Figure 22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps

Figure 23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps

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

Background selected & moved

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

Figure 24: Background layer with white halos can also move

Bottom layers selected—text layer off

Figure 25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering
Text layer on—one background layer off

Figure 26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
White Halo Creation

Page 8 of 10

Top layer: Certification stamp text

The white halo effect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, let’s address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the text—before filling the background layer with a green safety pattern. The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selection—thus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layer—without a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo effect was generated— either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. As might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures. Figure 27 shows the demonstration file set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF file was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop file on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently filled with white). When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is first selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection only. In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnail—in this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28). The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2 pixels. The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fill to the surrounding background area—not the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversed—also known as inverse—to ensure the pattern will fill everything on the background layer except the text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fill with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will define a safety paper pattern and fill the background layer using the current active selection.

Bottom layer: White background

Figure 27: A two-layer stamp text file created to demonstrate

Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail

Text is selected

Figure 28: A text selection created and selection expanded

Expand Selection dialog box

Figure 29: Expand Selection option—expanded 2 pixels
Selection Inverse option

Text selection expanded by 2 pixels

Figure 30: Next the selection needs to be inversed

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Safety Paper Creation

Page 9 of 10

Selection of a sample pattern area

In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be filled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defined as a fill option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to define it as a pattern—but a pattern can be easily defined from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel—the current Obama PDF file will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easily—which means that when the selected area is filled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlessly—without any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Define Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF file is closed and no longer needed. Back to the demonstration file shown in Figure 32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu. In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33.

Define the selection as a pattern

Figure 31: Selection used to define a pattern

Fill option chosen

The safety paper pattern defined earlier in Figure 31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure 34. Click OK to complete the effect. The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text.
Background layer active

Selection inversed

In Figure 36—the Stamp Text layer’s visibility is turned off, and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo effect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to read the explanation. In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an official document.

Figure 32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box

Pattern Fill option chosen

Background contains pattern fill

Figure 33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box

Figure 35: The pattern fills the selection area

Custom Pattern chosen

Stamp Text visibility off

White halo effect

Figure 34: The defined pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list

Figure 36: Turn off the text layer: White halo effect is displayed

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Some Final Thoughts

Page 10 of 10

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

Forgot to turn off a short  form layer

Forgot to turn off safety-paper layer in manufactured shadow

Background color magically shifts to blue

Figure 37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version

Enhancement applied to display short form elements

Figure 38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 5

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 6

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Get Email Updates

Contact Us

Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings

Search WhiteHouse.gov

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release April 27, 2011

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 8:48 A.M. EDT MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of

B L O G PO ST S ON T H I S I SS UE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Call with President Karzai Following the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached out to President Karzai Sunday following the reported killing and sounding of Afghan civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT

From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan

1 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT

Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future
Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS

MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we should be having yet.

Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+

YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn

2 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction. That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this. And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know. MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.

3 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions. Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen? MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet. Q Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign. If you could just explain the difference.

4 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii. Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this? MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan -MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.) I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,

5 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room. Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years? MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday -Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that. Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.) Q Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to -Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

6 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

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

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one. Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you -Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long. Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the -MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.

7 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing. It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this. Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with? MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves. Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign. Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow. Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House? MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here. Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his

8 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.) Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything. MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today. Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow. Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit. MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best. Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final

9 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow. And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about -MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about. Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking -MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this. Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?

10 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning. Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out. Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters? MR. PFEIFFER: No. Q Just to clarify what this document is --

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

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

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night. Q What time?

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

11 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Q

When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that? Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.” Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel? MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request. Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process? MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was

12 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

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

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet. Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments. Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

13 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes. Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent? MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally. Thanks. END 9:18 A.M. EDT

14 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

En español

Accessibility USA.gov

Copyright Information

Privacy Policy Apply for a Job

Contact

Subscribe to RSS Feeds

15 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 7

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Home • Articles • Born in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Posted on August 21, 2008 , Updated on November 1, 2008; April 27, 2011

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth." Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life? Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site? Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

1 of 5

3/13/2012 12:23 PM

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Doocy: Well, couldn’t it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate? Corsi: No, it’s a — there’s been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it’s been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It’s a fake document that’s on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce. Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal. It isn’t signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn’t released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp

2 of 5

3/13/2012 12:23 PM

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

The raised seal

Blowup of text You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes. The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process. We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.

3 of 5

3/13/2012 12:23 PM

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Blowup of certificate number Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen." We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over." In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

Obama’s birth announcement The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it

4 of 5

3/13/2012 12:23 PM

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be. When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes." – by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller

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

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008. Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama’s Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008. The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008. Nakaso, Dan. "Obama’s certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to ‘ridiculous’ barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 A 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICA T TE.

5 of 5

3/13/2012 12:23 PM

The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So... Page 2 of 58

Qualifications Who’s checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here Home » Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS

Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility
Submitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments

TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog’s credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — they don’t have the right background (update: see bios here): FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?

Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement. They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.

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

The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So... Page 3 of 58

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller. FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy. Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org’s supposed willingness to allow such an inspection). Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example). Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama’s legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details: In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired: “Well, here’s the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday (Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire. We based our suspicions and allegations on:

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

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 8

United States Department of State
Washington,D. C. 20520

- .....

Case No.: 200900535 Segment: PPT

DEC-I o 2010
t

q

v

L

:

.

I

I

, ' ,-*\; .s s * : .
" 1 .

#$& +y
.''$>-A

*-. " '

Ms. Pamela Barnett 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA 95826 Dear Ms. Bayett:
,

:. : +,.$;*. ,-$?*$ . . .., &
,

~.\.?$$zA $." *,@
,,A,-3

2

Y .

. .; .,
*

.

'L,

i -

.< ' -$??.
' '-2 .

? ; -XX& .'. , G

& +

. **.,
\ k

h

,
%

*k.'
&

.

1-

-

-2

J

,,.\

,
L

l%
\

>:

.;

% #

1

I refer to your request letter we received on January 2,2009 under the
of Information Act (Title 5 USC Section 552) for a copy of documents r e h g to Stanley Ann Dunham. We initiated a search of the Office of Passport Services. $$ ,14
- > a

;.,\.+--a -. , -& , 5
.-+.

'>

*,Ly;t;
$. .

.s ::&-'$bx
, &'.*

'"

. ., :;7;:4%Z.,: . - .': 2 $
5

The search of the records of the Office of Passport Services has been completed and has resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are respcmsive: , to your request. These documents have been reviewed and the results are set .forth in the accompanying letter (with enclosures) of Jonathan M. Rolbin, . Director.
\ $

.&,$
% <* .

I

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

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

Office of Information Programs and Services Enclosures:

As stated

United States Department of State
Wushutgton, D.C. 20520

In reply refer to: CA/PPT/L/LE - Case Control Number: 200900535 Pamela Barnett 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA 95826 Dear Ms. Barnett: The following is in response to your request to the Department of State dated January 2,2009, requesting the release of material under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 5 552). We have completed a search for records responsive to your request. The search resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. After careful review of these documents, we have determined that that all six documents may be released in full. We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other non-vital records fiom that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance fi-om the General Services Administration. Passport records typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrancelexit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc. since this information is entered into the passport book after issuance.

This completes the processing of your request.

Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Enclosure: As stated

. .
F O R M A'

-

7".

.

4

.

"

i-lr

7VED

~ D G E T BURE&U&O.

4i-"a'x8

DEPARTMElv I O F S T A T E

, P a s s p o r t O f f i c e Use Only) Amend as shown i n sectton: O B O C O Add VlSa Pages.
D

-,___=.
F

APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT O F PASSPORT
INSTRUCTIONS: A l l requests for # n c l u s ~ o of persons must be sworn to (or affsrmed) ben fore on Agent o f the Deportment o f State or Clerk of Court. Photographs, whlch meet the requ~rements below, and evldence of c i t l z e n s h l p must be s u b m ~ t t e dfor a l l persons to be b y t h l s amendment. I f such persons hove hod, or been i n c l u d e d In, o prevlous i t should be submitted 1nstec.l of other documents, and Section G completed.

K l E

O

0

,

DATE O F BIRTH

D O N O T MAR F A C E

C

(husband) ocquired c i t i z e n s h i p b y naturalization, and/or Section 1 i f w i f e wos previously married before March 3, 1931.)
(WIFE'S) ( H U S B A N D ' S ) F U L L L E G A L N A M E PLACE O F BIRTH

When more than 1 person i s t o be included,

(City, State)
DO N O T S T A P L E SECOND P H O T O A T T A C H BY P A P E R C L I P
X

DATE O F BIRTH

D A T E O F MARRIAGE

D

E X C L U D E PERSONS, AS FOLLOWS:
WHO I S / A R E

0T O A P P L Y

FOR S E P A R A T E PASSPORT

O N O TC C OO A N Y A T MP

E

F
6
(CHILD(REN)'S) NUMBER (WIFE'S) ( H U S B A N D ' S ) L A S T U. S . P A S S P O R T D A T E ISSUED

IN NAME O F

UIS S U B M I T T E D H E R E W I T H
O T H E R D I S P O S I T I O N (State)

7

-

64

DSP-19

(OVER)

PAGE 2

TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT REQUESTING INCLUSION I N T H E PASSPORT OF A R E L A T I V E WHO ACQUIRED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N
MY IMMIGRATED TO T H E U. S. ON (Month, day, year)
A C Q U I R E D U. 5. C I T I Z E N S H I P O N (Month, day, year)

T H R O U G H THE N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N O F

0S E L F
' W H O W A S N A T U R A L I Z E D B E F O R E T H E (Name of court)

0P A R E N T

0F O R M E R

HUSBAND

L O C A T E D IN

fclry, State)

A S SHOWN B Y T H E A C C O M P A N Y I N G C E R T I F I C A T E O F N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N NO.

TO B E COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHOSE WIFE WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931, AND WHO IS TO BE I N C L U D E D IN PASSPORT ( I f married more than t w ~ c e ,s e t forth facts I n a supplemental statement)
HER MAIDEN NAME WAS
D A T E OF PREVIOUS MARRIAGE

I
NAME OF FORMER HUSBAND
P L A C E O F PREVIOUS MARRIAGE

I
DATE
,

FORMER H U S B A N D ' S P L A C E O F BIRTH

MARRIAGE W A S TERMINATED BY

0O E A T H
IN T H E E V E N T OF O E A T H OR ACCIDENT N O T I F Y NAME I N F U L L RELATIONSHIP

0D I V O R C E
STREET

ADDRESS. CITY. S T A T E

2

I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport has), s i n c e acquiring United S t a t e s citizenship, been naturalized a s a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation o r other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or s e r v e d in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed che duties of any office, post, o r employment under the government o f a foreign s r a t e or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election i n a foreign s t a t e o r participated in an election o r p l e b i s c i t e to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in t h e United S t a t e s o r before a diplomatic or consular officer of t h e Uniced S t a t e s in a foreign state; ever sought o r claime d the benefits of the nationality of any foreign s t a t e ; of been convicted by a court o r court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any a c t of treason against, o r attempting by force to overthrow, o r bearing arms against, t h e United States, or conspiring t o overthrow, put down o r to destroy by force, the Government of the United States,
(If a n y of the a b o v e - m e n t r o n e d a c t s or c o n d r t r o n s h a v e b e e n p e r f o r m e d b y or a p p l y t o t h e a p p l r c a n t . o r to a n y o t h e r p e r s o n inc l u d e d or t o be r n c l u d e d rn the p a s s p o r t , t h e p o r t i o n w h ~ c h p p l i e s s h o u l d b e s t r u c k o u t , a n d a s u p p l e m e n t a r y e r p l s n a t o r y s t a t e m e i t a under o a t h ( o r ajflrrnatron) b y t h e p e r s o n t o w h o m t h e portron rs a p p l r c a b l e s h o u l d be a t t a c h e d and m a d e a part o f t h i s application.)

I solemnly swear (affirm) that the statements herein made are true and that I have not previously a s k e d to have t h e s e additional persons included in my passport; that they are not now in p o s s e s s i o n of valid p a s s p o r t s , and chat they h a v e not ma& application for p a s s p o r t s and been refused.

I

.

,+

:i .

Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this

i/

/ d a y of

19

( A g e n t , D e p a r t m e n t o / State o r C l e r k o / C o ~ r r ~ )

I

7

-

64

DSP 19

1

' *U
S
RNMENT PRiNTING OFFICE : 1964 0 - 702-220 (2.12)

5 OF AMERICA

MENT

/1EXTENSION

OF IDENTIT

P E R I O D AND P U R P O S E

U

Ad

/ N P,FF//L/ATE ,A44 PZ/,ED ~ ~ ~ D o / Z / I/ S / ~ E C/T/?zN

I have not (and no other person ~ n c l u d e dor to be included in t h e passport or documentation has), s i n c e acquiring tlnited S t a t e s citizenship, been naturalized a s a citizen of a foreign s t a t e ; taken an oath or made an a f f i r m a i m or other formal declaration of a l l e g i a n c e to a foreign s t a t e ; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, o r employment under the government of a foreign s t a t e or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign s t a t e or p a r ticipated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the.United S t a t e s or before a diplomatic or consular officer of t h e United S t a t e s in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benef i t s of the nationality of any foreign s t a t e ; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any a c t of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States.

I

( I f m y o f the above-mentioned a c t s or c o n d i t i o n s have been perfomled by or apply t o t h e applicont, or t o any other person i n c l v d e d in t h e passport or documentation, t h e portion which a p p l i e s should be struck out, and a sup k m e n t a r y e x p l a n ~ t o r ~ statement under o a t h ( o r a f f i r m a t i o n ) by t h e person t o whom t h e portron i s applrcable should b e otrached and m a J a ~ u r o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . ) t

Subscribed and

f SEAW
I (The ueparrment will a s s u m e that the consular officer,

to the applicant's identity u n l e s s a notation to the con

''
I

NAME

BIRTHPLACE

BIRTHDATE

L.
SPOUSE
WAS

PREVIOUSLY MARRIED TO

PREVIOUS MARRIAGE T E R M I N A T E D
DIVORCE DEATH

B Y

NUMBER O F
PASSPORT
MY

SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS

I DISPOSITION

I

OF MY SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS PASSPORT

,/

'V

( L~ 7

=ATTACHED
-

OCANCELED

(.

(DATE)

AMEND T O I N C L U D E ( E X C L U D E ) C H I L D R E N

AMEND T O R E A D IN MARRIED N A M E
NAME

- .* - +
P L A C E MARRIED MARRIED TO

>

1

D A T E MARRIED

CITIZENSHIP O F HUSBAND

0U.

5. CITIZEN

0A L I E N - C I T I Z E N

OF

O T H E R AMENDMENT(S) ( D E S C R I B E I N D E T A I L A C T I O N R E Q U E S T E D )

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED T O DEPARTMENT B Y CONSULAR O F F I C E R
L -

II

.

DOCUMENTARY E V I D E N C E SEEN AND R E T U R N E D T O A P P L I C A N T B Y CONSULAR O F F I C E R

S T A T E M E N T O F A C T I O N B Y P O S T U P O N D E P A R T M E N T ' S A U T H O R I Z A T I O N ( T o be e x e c u t e d o n l y i n connection w i t h c a s e s referred to D e p t ; )
b

THE

0PASSPORT 0CARD O F I D E N T I T Y 0C E R T I F I C A T E

ORENEWEDTO
WAS

DATE

L

0AMENDED AS REQUESTED 0E X T E N D E D TO
(Consul o f the United States o f America)
X
i

AUTHORITY

X

OPINION O F CONSULAR O F F I C E R

t

(Photo required for incltrsions)
STAPLE ONE PHOTO HERE DO NOT MAR FACE
T h e passport photos required must be approximately

w LC w

I

t
2
x

2% b y 2% inches

i n size;

be on thin unglazed paper, show f u l l front v i e w of applicant w i t h a plain, l i g h t back-ground; and have been taken w i t h i n 2 years of date submitted. When dependents are included they should be shown i n a-group photograph. T h e consul w i l l not accept photos that are not a good likeness. Color photo-

w

1
7

-

m

graphs are acceptable.

DG not s t e l e second photo. loosely b y pmer clip.
FS-299

Attach

-

64

(Consul o f the United States o f America) X I n certaln cases specific authorization by the Department w i l l be required. I n these cases an extra copy o f the form should b e prepared Upon r e c e ~ p t the Pepartment's reply the extra copy should be transmitted with a notation o f the action taken, of

AVOID THE LAST MINUTE RUSH

DON'T PUT IT OFF
t

APPLY MOW

I

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

REQUEST BY UNITED STATES NATIONAL FOR AND REPORT OF EXCEPTION TO SECTION 53.1, TITLE 22 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
C

REQUEST

r o r i i * P a s s p o r t O t f ~ c e Department of Stace, Washlngtoc, ,

D

NAME

STAYLEY ANN SOETORO
H O M E ADDRESS

-- -342

DESCR~PTION

135 I D < R ~ R .---~n a t r , ~ m a22 Pav,, Djakarta, Indonesj M ~ Ldu, 1677 South 3eretsnia, c/o Stenley Dl
NATURALIZATION DATE

5t6~ Brow

Brown
I

I I
BIRTHD4TE PASSPORT NO., D A T E A N D P L A C E C
I~UARLI

NOV. 29,
BIQ'HPLACE

N. A .

.

b'ichita , Kansas
D A T E A N D P L A C E OF D E P A R T U R E

3-1
DESTINATION

3' 777788 9-65 ~ o n o l Hafmii s

DEPARTURE FROM U N I T E D STATES

October 1967, Honolulu, Hawaii
F L I G H T NUMBER OR VESSEL

Djakarta

, Indonesia

-

NAME O F C A R R I E R

J z p n Airlines
I

T R A V E L T O U N I T E D STATES
D A T E A N D P L A C E O F D E F A q T U R E FROM A B R O A D

I I D E N T I T Y DOCLiMENTS P R E S E N T E D

October 20, 1971 , Dj a k e r t a
F L I G H T NUMBER OR VESSEL

, Indonesia

1

Passport as shown ebove

I Pan Pnerican Aiwdps
I

PLACE OF E N T R Y

DESTINATION

1

I

October 21 , 1971 , Honolulu, H z k x i i
ACTION T A K E N

I f
I

Identity and citizenship established.
Exception g r a n t e d under 22 CFR 53.2(h).

bCT2t1siiq7) p ) (Inspec or' Stam

(Immigration ond N a t u r o l i z d t i o n Service)

1 S I G N A T U R E (Immigration Officer'

irX.

'

.,

T-+

*

.

3 \

* >.. % -f

~

y

~

~

(

*I * ~ " ~;

m

=

-

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE

- PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE)

4d

DEPARTMENT OF S T A T E

1

; : .- :
LocATlo,

-'

-

.

1

Jakarta, Indonesia

1

TO BE COMPLETED BY A APPLICANT W O BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION N H
I IMMIGRATED T O T H E U.S. I RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY I N T H E U.S. From (Yeor) T o (Year) (Month, year) N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N C E R T I F I C A T E NO. Subm~tted herewith Seen and returned Previously submitted

3 0 0

..
1 *

%

-- 4:

p .
s e v

P L A C E N A T U R A L I Z E D ( C ~ t y ,state)

N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N COURT

DATE NATURALIZED

I
(WIFE'S) (HUSBAND'S) FULL L E G A L NAME =NATIVE

I
BORN NATURALIZATION ~ E R TFII C A T E NO.

COMPLETE ONLY IF OTHERS ARE T BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT O REGISTRATION AND Sl@MIT GROUP PHOTOGRAPH O R
=NATURALIZED
P L A C E NATURA L l Z E D ( C ~ t y ,state)
I

0 and r e t u r n e t Seen
k
I
D A T E OF B I R T H (Mo.,
Day, year)
2-

-

I

N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N COURT

DATE NATURALIZED

P
t

(WIF@S) (HUSBAND'S) P L A C E OF B I R T H ( c i t y , State or Prov~nce,country)
- --

I
country) (Month, OF B I R T H D A T E day,

I
-

NAME I N F U L L OF C H I L D R E N INCLUDED

P L A C E OF B I R T H ( C ~ t y ,state/i)(ovtnce,

RESIDED I N U.S. (From-To)

-

' *"

,- '2*vwm ; >

9 Z 6 6 w w s

I ;

FORM FS-176

9-74

FATHER'S NAME

U.S. C I T I Z E N

S14/3L€Y
DATE NATURALIZED

VVNUSM
P L A C E N A T U R A L I Z E D (Ctty, state)

FATHER'S D A T E OF B I R T ~

13T H E R D E C E A S E D FA
FAT~ER RESIDING AT

M~N~LQC u,

F A T H E R RESIDED I N U.S.

j

~~~m

Elk?7~
or

?YkY&-%r ::
~
b

MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME

MOTHER'S P L A C E b F B I R T H (Ctty. State. Prownca

Country)

-NATURALIZED

MADUrh'
-1

PAYue
&OTHER

~ u . sC . T I Z E N I

. -9
=-kr . 2

I PLACE N A T U R A L I Z E D (Crty, state).

flNOT U.S.
MOTHER RESIDED I N U.S.
o m

CITIZEN

,zL& I744

MOTHER'S D A T E OF B I R T H

26, I922

a MOTHER DECEASED
R-IDING AT

No&@& ( J L U , # /

7

T-

f'h'~>-fdi
I .,".
t

j I ?

WAS N E V E R MARRIED

@ l #AS L A S T MARRIED ON (Dote)

&fhsC

IHUSBAND'S OF OR WIFE'S PLACE

BIRTH ( c i t y . state)

I H U S B A ~ D RSNIFE'S D A T E OF BIRTH O'

/5#

PqESENT F U L L L E G A L NAME OF HUSBAND OR WIFE

3: :

I 11 HUSBAND OR WIFE IS

U.S. CITIZEN

HUSBAND OR W I F E N ~ RESIDING A T W

I

M A R R I A G E TERMINATED B Y

0DEATH 0D I V O R C E ON
PROPOSED TRAVEL PLANS
S T A T E S WITHIN _ C M o N T n s

@ INTEND T O R E T U R N TO THE UNIT

-

T
,

Y E A R S TO

rn

RESIDE &SIT.

DINDEFINITE
A F

tb
0 1

I N E V E R I N T E N D TO RETURN TO T H E U N I T E D STATES I I N T E N D TO CONTINUE T O RESIDE

C 6

id

TURN 70
-

)

B

~

~
D A T E OF D E P A R T U R E

8
I

~

~

PORT OF D E P g y A

mzT4

NAME OF SHIP OR A I R L I N E

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

1
% *

4
1:

p: i.

-s

.,:;

.: .

rson f o be included in the passpar, or regist&ion, the t o m y other offinndion) r t h e person to whom the portion is cppllcpble should

,'

that the photograph attached i s a likeness of me and of those persons

f

-7Lfl
( T o be signed at same t i m e by h u s b o n d / w i f e t o be included i n passport) ( T o be signed by Applicmt in presence of person odministering ooih)

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

(Seal)

Consul
I D E N T I F Y I N G DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (See

of the United Stztes at
8 F A M 243,
Proc9dures)
1

J a k a r t a , ~hdonesia

F P i-

E.

0.243
J3-1Cazt3, I n d o n s s i a
R E G I S T R A T I O N APPROVED

POST LOCATION

lo ALL entries in all sectionsthat apply to you. If information is unknown.

PASSPORT ISSUED No.

Z3337221

Date
Expires CARD OF IDENTITY AND REG. No. Date $5 fee collected ( f o r card) q 48-page q 96-page passpon;

prwided b not adequate. PRINT OR TYPE ENTRIES.
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS
(First name) (Middle name) ( L e n name)

Date Expires

4/'23/81
4/2 7/86

a $3 Application fee collected
a $10 Fee collected
17 q
N o Fee passport Official passport a citizen

STANLEY
1.

ANN

DUNHAM
BIRTH DATE Month Day Year

o f t h e United States, d o hereby apply f o r ( a passport) (registration). SEX

( M F ) B I R T H P L A C E (City, State o r Province, Country)

APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP
B i r t h Certificate mssport Certificate of Naturalization o r Citizenship Date:

!=
HEIGHT

bdfcKANSAS, U.S.A. H 17 3 ,

Nov . BROWN

1 29 1 1942

-COLOR OF H A I R COLOR O F EYES S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y NO. (Spell out) (Spell out) ( N o t mandatory)

b 1-474
Submitted Herewith d a n c e l e d 5 Returned OSnn5Returned

Bearer's Name:

- 5

FL

2

in.

BROWN

535-40-8522
Place:

7' -

-

NOW R E S I D I N G A T

J a l a n Daksa 1/14, Kebayoran Baru J a k a r t a Sel atan, I n d o n e s i a
Z I P Code) (If m m e as above,

MY LAST REGISTRATION AS A CITIZEN O F T H E U N I T E D STATES W A S APPROVED
Location o f Registering O f f i c e Date o f Registration

P E R M A N E N T RESIDENCE (Street Address, City, State, U.S. so indicate)

1617 South B e r e t a n i a , Apt.1008,

Hon., Hawaii

..
- I F ANSWER

Phone No.:

IS"YES."

EXPLAIN WHEN A N D WHY

II
!

FATHER'S NAME

~~IRTHPLACE

B m M O T H E R ' S M A 1D E N N A M E

-- -- - - . - -

STANLEY

.

DUNHAM
-

I

MADELYN PAYNE

I

BIRTHPLACE

- --

M i t t / / JA ]FIRTH DATE I U.S. CITIZEN KANSAS ,-'U-.S ;A:*'vlar$Q 163 1 a y e s NO
-

JYC;KU,

--

J V .

BIRTH DATE

- -

--

U.S. C I T I Z E N

-

-

-

. I

I

KANSAS,

u.s.'A.

ONO

I

MOST RECENT PASSPORT, S T A T E I T S

1

I
I

(PHOTO R E Q U I R E M E N T S FC PERSONS T O B E I N C L U D E D ) Photos m u s t b e O N L Y o f persons m be included (other than pasaport bearer). When m o r e t h a n one person Is t o b e included, a group phot* graph o f the inclusions is required.

COMPLETE IF CHILDREN OR BROTHERS AND SISTERS UNDER AGE 13 AND/OR WIFE/HUSBAr'- '"'I" CLUDED AND SUBMIT PHOTO
"

I

'sue

Date:June 2. 1976

tCONSULAROFFlCE USE ONLY1
WIFEVS/HUSBAND'S E V I D E N C E

I

FULL LEGAL NAME S u b m i t t e d Herewith Canceled 5 Returned Seen 5 Returned
1 .

I

BIRTHPUCE (Citv,Stasw Pwince, Carnay)
I

BIRTH DATE (Mo. Dw,Yr.)

1

CHILD(REN)'S NAME(S) IN FULL CONSULATE W I L L STAPLE PHOTO O F I N C L U S I O N S HERE.

BIRTHPLACE(S) BlSTH DATE (S) (City,Stste o r Country) (Mo., Day, Yr.)

I

D O N O T IMPRESS S E A L O N PHOTOGRAPHS.

q S u b m i t t e d Herewith q Canceled 81 Returned
Seen 5 Returned

I

I have n o t (and no other person included i n t h i s application has), since acquiring U n i t e d States citizenship, performed any of the acts listed i n section I o n the reverse o f this application f o r m (unless explanatory statement is attached). I solemnly swear (or a f f i r m ) t h a t the statements made on all of the b f those persons t o be i n ded i n pages o f this application are t r u e and t h e photograph(r) attached i s (are) a likeness o f m
(SEAL) ( T o be signed a t same t i m e b y h u s b a n d w l f e to be included i n passport)
-

/L 17

( T o be signed :b day o f

Applicant i n presence of person administering w t h )

p. -

~5% j S-

I3 Vt, 3

Subscribed and sworn t o (affirmed) before m e this

d-7
I

@vJ

Consul

o f t h e U n l t e d States a t

?=JLfeC;fa,

OPTIONAL FORM 178 (FORMERLY FS176J

t / (OVER YOU MUST COMPLETE PAGE 2)

-

nature o f & r 6 n

takin<&$licetion) h January 1978 D e p t of State

UNmD STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

1

ON BACK OF FORM IN WHITE AREAS ONLY

MAILING ADDRESS (In Care Of if - e M,

Street, C i

S a e ZIP Code) tt,

.

I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - & -

COLOR OF HAIR

' Incherr a

OODdet

;* s i o ~ h ~ ~ ~ aI l ~ ~ ~ f
w
y*

HaMEPn€'mE

-

29 4k rolclfidnsg~ 1
(bCa.

& I I

(Anre Codel

I I

I

.. . - ; :q
2

g-

I I

~ # I /L PPf NE s
NAMEHYRKL

PHONE NUMBER

-P

. P b l : o ~ b s l l ~ ~
L R J a d ~ a

~

h

~~~~
n/~l,
Beardsw

FOLLOW M U C T I O ( Y G CAREFUUV-WWMPLEE OR UNACCEPTABLE APPUCATKWs W W . Y THE 1 6 8 W C E OF YOUR PASSPOUT.

SERVICES USE ONLY

RECORD: Typs of Documnt(t4. Numb, bate Aedthamd. Caut/Placa, B e a d s Nas as .

Evidenca of Name Change

m / e

OF-178 1-78

PAGE 2 TO - - - - BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION
-

'

C

1
. IMMIGRATED T O THE I U.S. (Month, year)

I RESIDED U.S. F r o m (Year)

CONTINUOUSLYIN THE NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE
T o (Year)

1

NO.

*
P L A C E N A T U R A L I Z E D (City, state)
I
'

q Seen and returned q Previously submitted
N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N COURT
I

Submitted herewith

DATE NATURALIZED

D
OCCUPATION

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS
[VISIBLE DISTINGUISHING MARKS

PROGRAM OFFICER, FORD FOUNDATION
E -EN
I WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIEDON I T 0 ( F u l l legal name)

none

MUST W P L E T E FOLLOYVlNG IF CHILDREN OF A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE ARE MlCLUOED OR IF P R W Y MARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3,1931

WHO WAS B O R N A T (City, State, Country)

O N (Date o f b i r t h )

OFORMER HUSBAND WAS

U.S. CITIZEN

PREVIOUS MARRIAGE TERMINATED B Y

ODEATH ODIVORCE
PARBTT(S)

*

L

nFORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT U.S. -E IF APPLICANT OR ANY E m
(Month) (Year) Date Applicant

CITIZEN I O N (Date)

SECTION BWAS NOT B R IN THE UNITED STATES AN) C O N
IF FATHER NATURALIZED: Certificate No.
I

W CrrUENSHP

'ENTERED THE U.S.

I
G

q Wife q Husband qChild
RESIDENCE/CONTINUOUS P H Y S I C A L PRESENCE I N U.S. From(Year) T o (Year) Applicant

I F KNOWN, FATHER'S RESIDENCE/ P H Y S I C A L PRESENCE I N U.S. F r o m (Year) T o (Year)

Before (Name of Court)

Place (City, State)

I I F MOTHER NATURALIZED: Date Certificate No.

IF KNOWJ, MOTHEWS RESIDENCE/ P H Y S I C A L PRESENCE I N U.S. F r o m (Year) T o (Year)

(
pl

Before (Name o f Court)
I I

Place (City, State)
I

/

j(

1 1

PROPOSED TRAVEL PLANS (NotMandatorv)

I I N T E N D T O C O N T I N U E T O RESIDE A B R O A D FOR T H E F O L L O W I N G P E R I O D A N D PURPOSE

I

Two y e a r s c o n t r a c t w i t h Ford Foundation f r o m January 1981
D A T E O F DEPARTURE
I

-

December 1982.

I I N T E N D T O RETURN T O THE U N I T E D STATES PERMANENTLY T$ RESIDE W I T H I N YEARS MONTHS - . 1

-

-

TR information solicited o n this f

I

!

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

is authorized by, b u t n o t l i m i t e d to, those statutes codified i n Titles 8, 18, and 22, UnitedStatesCode, n d all dified, and all regulations issued pursuant t o Executive Order 11295 o f August 5, 1966. T h e p r i m a r y purpoaa f o r predecessor statutes whether o r n o soliciting t h e information i s t o establish citizenship, identity and entitlement t o issuance o f a U n i t e d Stater Parrport or related facility, and t o properly administer and enforce t h a laws pertaining thereto.

T h e i n f o r m a t i o n is made available as a r o u t i n e use o n a need-to-know basis t o personnel o f t h e Department o f State and other government agencies h w i n g statutory o r other l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y t o maintain such information i n t h e performance o f their official duties; pursuant t o a subpoena o r c o u r t order; and, as set f o r t h i n Part 6a, T i t l e 22, Code of Federal Regulations (See Federal Register V o l u m e 40, pages 45755, 45756,47419 and 47420). Failure t o provide t h e information requested on this f o r m m a y result i n t h e denial of a U n i t e d States Passport, related document o r r e w i c e to t h e individual seeking such passport, document o r service. N O T E : T h e disclosure o f y o u r Social Security Number o r o f t h e i d e n t i t y and location o f a person t o be n o t i f i e d in t h e w e n t o f death or r c i d e n t is entirely voluntary. H o w w e r , failure t o provide t h i s information m a y prevent t h e Department of State f r o m providing y o u w i t h t i m e l y a s s i s t m a o r protection i n t h e event y o u should encounter an emergency situat:-7 w h i l e outside t h e U n i t e d States.

I!
.

I

ACTS OR CONDITIONS
( I f m y o f t h e b e l o w m e n t i o n e d acts o r conditions have been performed b y o r apply t o t h e applicant, o r t o any other person t o b e included in t h e passport, t h e p o r t i o n which applies should be struck out, and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath ( o r affirmation) b y t h e person to whom t h e p o r t i o n is applicable should be attached and made a p a r t of this application.) I have n o t ( a n d n o other person included i n this application has), since acquiring U n i t e d States citizenship, been naturalized . a c i t i z m o a f r r f o m stam; taken an o a t h o r made an affirmation o r other f o r m a l declaration o f allegiance t o a foreign state; entered or served in t h e s m e d f o r c r of 8 foreign rar; accepted o r performed t h e duties o f any office, post, o r employment under t h e government o f a foreign state o r political subdivision thoreof; m.d. a f o r m a l renunciation o f nationality either in t h e U n i t e d States or before a diplomatic o r consular officer o f t h e U n i t e d States in a foreign state; ever sought o r claimed t h e benefits o f t h e nationality o f any foreign state; o r been convicted b y a court o r c o u r t martial o f competent jurisdiction o f c o m m i t t i n g any act of treason against, or attempting b y force t o overthrow, o r bearing arms against, t h e U n i t e d States, o r conspiring t o overthrow, put d o w n o r t o destroy b y force, the Government o f t h e U n i t e d States. W A R N I N G : False statements made knowingly and w i l l f u l l y i n passport applications o r i n affidavits o r other supporting documents w b m i t m d thwmith are punishable b y f i n e and/or imprisonment under t h e provisions o f 18 USC 1001 and/or 18 USC 1542. Alteration o r m u t i l e t i o n of a pslport b d u pursuant t o this application is punishable b y f i n e and/or imprisonment u n d e r t h e provisions o f 18 USC 1543. T h e u r of a p . r p a t invtoi.tfon o f t h e restrictions contained therein o r Of t h e passport r w u l a t i o n s is punishable b y f i n e and/or imprisonment under 18 USC 1644. All M e m e n t s and documents submitted are subject t o verif icaticn.
-

(FOR USE OF OFFICE TAKING APPLICATION)
APPLICANT'S I D E N T I F Y I N G D O C U M E N T ( S ) I D E N T I F Y I N G DOCUMENT(S) O F W I F E / H U S B A N D T O B E I N C L U D E D I N PASSPORT certificate o f Naturalq ization o r Citizenship No.: Passport Issue Date: Driver's License ?tier ( ~ p e c i f ~ ) : Place o f Issue: Issued i n Name of:

I

I

q U 0 Drivefs License q ~ t h e (specify): r

Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship \ Passport

Issue Date: place of Issue: Issued i n Name of: *US.

I

I

I

Government Printing 01t1ca: 1977-261-647n239

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 9

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

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PM: Full Licensed Name: Full Former name(s): Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: Registered Business Address: Registered Business Phone: Illinois Registration Status: Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) Barack Hussein Obama None

December 17, 1991 Not available online Not available online Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:

None

Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625. ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email registration@iardc.org. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests

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

3/5/2010

ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 2 of 2
page for details. Return to Search

IARDC ®:online access to registration and discipline information regarding Illinois lawyers presented by the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. Lawyer Search | Lawyer Registration | How to Submit a Request For Investigation Rules and Decisions | Ethics Inquiry Program | Publications New Filings, Hearing Schedules and Clerk's Office | Client Protection Program Resources & Links | ARDC Organizational Information Website Information | Search Site | Home

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

3/5/2010

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 10

Chapter 3 – Never Vetted Obama Never Vetted for Constitional Requirements or Even His Legal Right to Work in the U.S., Was it Required?
IntroductionNo Congressional Enforceable Requirement (Law) to Vet Constitutional Qualification of President/Vice President Elect The 111th Congress and Electors Never Vetted Obama’s Constitutional Qualification No Federal Agency Vetted Obama No State Secretary of State or Election Official Vetted Obama No U.S. President and Senator Illinois State Senator wasn’t vetted Conclusion No One in any Official Capacity Has Seen Proof of Natural Born Citizenship or any type of Citizenship

The following Chapter provides very strong evidence that Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER had any of his official records viewed by anyone in any official position in the U.S. federal government or state governments regarding his birth place, citizenship, and possible criminal activity. The reason why Obama’s records have not been viewed by Congress or a federal government agency is that there is no enforceable Congressional requirement for vetting the Constitutional qualifications of President/Vice President Elects or and no directed punishment for not vetting a President Elect. My evidence was proven to be true by a report leaked in the Fall of 2010 from the Congressional Research. If Congress does not do its job to vet a President Elect, the only way to obtain justice for the Constitution is to go to the branch of government not involved with the election of the President elect – the Judicial Branch – federal court or the Supreme Court or possibly a state court. Some states have removed not constitutionally qualified candidates from the Presidential ballot in the past (California) but failed to investigate Obama’s records even though complaints and even lawsuits were filed by concerned citizens. The failed results of this avenue are addressed in my Obstruction of Justice chapter and include Obama’s Supreme Court nominees Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor who did not recuse themselves on 3 cases challenging the eligibility of Obama and ultimately their judgeship legality . The hypothesis supported by my research and the Congressional Research XXX, is that Not one member of Congress, Elector of the Electoral College, any state Democratic of Republican party, federal government agency employee including the FBI, Secretary of State, state election board official, judge or state attorney general across the country has ever seen Obama’s original birth certificate or other Presidential qualifying documentation regarding Obama. In addition, no state or federal agency while he was Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator and now President of the United States required Obama to provide proof that he is able to work legally in the country. Theoretically, Obama could be an illegal alien.

No Enforceable Requirement to Vet President/Vice President Elect the 111th Congress and Electors Failed to Vet Obama, but 110th Vetted McCain
Federal Vetting
HR 1503 was introduced by Representative Posey(but not even brought to a vote) and would require a candidate be vetted for meeting the Presidential Constitutional requirements before being placed on the ballot. By having to introduce this bill, it proves a lack of a current enforceable vetting process which requires “proof” of Constitutional qualifications, not hearsay or insufficient evidence by a candidate like Obama. The Constitution gives Congress the opportunity for vetting a President and Vice President Elect and to the states through the Electoral College and ballot control.

20th Amendment

Section 3. 
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

12th Amendment The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. 
Article 2, Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector
………..

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

The electoral college has never formally vetted a President elect’s Constitutional qualifications before. Electors are appointed by a party with the intent and by state law, for them to vote the party line regardless of the candidate’s legal qualifications. Twenty-four states have laws that require the elector to vote the party line. When an elector does not vote for their party’s candidate they are referred to as a “faithless” elector. According to research done by Saint Leo University there have only been 156 faithless votes in our country’s history. A Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214) further takes away any discretion of the elector to vote his conscience. For example, even if an elector believed his party’s candidate may be ineligible, he would feel pressured to vote the party line or be replaced. An effort was made by a group called Democrat Disaster to inform every Democrat elector in the county that there was a potential problem with Obama’s eligibility. The letter asked them to take action on investigating the matter further. All letters were sent certified mail and not one Democrat elector called for an investigation. You can read more about this effort in the Citizen Activism chapter.

As demonstrated by the first document from the Office of Personnel Management, responsibility for vetting a President-Elect lies with Congress. However, California has in the distant past removed a Presidential candidate from the ballot for not meeting the age requirement. California did fail to vet Obama for the 2008 ballot as did all of the other secretaries of state. This is said with 100% confidence because not one SOS has claimed to have seen Obama’s long form birth certificate. This website also has letters/emails from all of the Secretaries of State that confirm they are not responsible for vetting Presidential or other federal candidates. http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Vetting_Candidates

Many Secretaries of State were sued to vet Obama, but they all said they had no duty to vet a Presidential candidate – some said that it was the party’s responsibility. Many emails were obtained that confirmed these statements. The DNC failed to answer my requests for proof they vetted Obama. Electors could have acted by not giving their votes or by having an investigation performed, but failed to do so. Some Representatives and Senators say it’s the court’s job to vet Obama’s Constitutional qualifications and Justice Clarence Thomas in Congressional testimony recently hinted that the court was avoiding the Obama eligibility issue. So citizens, many of them veterans or currently serving in the Reserve, had to act when our government failed to do so by filing lawsuits and criminal complaints against Obama for not being Constitutionally qualified. Not one lawsuit was successful at getting access to Obama’s vital records (the DOJ and private attorneys represented Obama to block his records) or having a court make a ruling whether he is a Natural Born Citizen under the intent of the founders and according to SCOTUS and other federal rulings. Obama’s citizenship and birth certificate were also not vetted while he was an Illinois State Senator; so America only has Obama’s and Chiyome Fukino’s (Hawaii Health Department Director hearsay that he was born in the United States. Once discovery is obtained on Obama’s birth location and parentage, and whether he currently is a legal citizen, a federal court of law can make the final determination on his legality of being the POTUS/CINC. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT NO ONE IN THE ILLINOIS STATE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN AN ORIGINAL HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT HAS EVALUATED AND RELEASED HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS FROM THE TIME HE WAS BORN UNTIL CURRENT TIMES. OBAMA COULD NOT BE LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. NO ONE KNOWS THE CITIZENSHIP OF OBAMA EXCEPT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WHO WILL NOT RELEASE IMMIGRATION RECORDS ON OBAMA’S INDONESIAN NAME – BARRY SOETORO aka Soebarkah (from his mother’s passport records). This is covered in the Obstructing Justice Chapter.

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

The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires

investigations of White House staff working for the President, but did not require that the President, Vice President, Senators or Representatives be investigated by any of the agencies that perform background investigations – including the FBI. Consequently, Obama did not undergo a background check as a U.S. Senator or for the Office of the President. (Documents appear on next page and pages 2 and 3 of the document are left out for brevity. Underlining done for emphasis by author.) The OPM claims pride in safeguarding the country as a result of the background checks the perform, but who is checking on the federally elected officials?

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

This only left the vetting of Obama to Congress. Did they vet Obama? No, they did not. The press had the option to vet Obama, but failed to do so as well. Congress vetted Senator John McCain with Senate Resolution 511 and McCain provided a copy of his original Panama birth certificate. They however did nothing to investigate Obama even though he failed to provide an original birth certificate for their viewing and admitted that he had a foreign citizen father. No one in Congress has ever reported to have seen a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. You will see the common theme of failing to vet Obama’s Constitutional qualifications properly. As evident in Congress’s passing un-Constitutional laws, the members do not understand or care about upholding the Constitution especially the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requirement to be POTUS. It is not a surprise that even Senator Diane Feinstein only states Obama is a citizen and makes no statement that Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Feinstein and many other congressmen also say Obama is qualified because of the 14th Amendment even though that amendment makes no reference to Natural Born Citizen. Other Congressmen repeatedly referred to Obama’s online Hawaii Certification of Live Birth as proof he was born in Hawaii and proof he is a Natural Born Citizen. It is frightening that America’s leaders would be so naïve in the age of altering online photo images and producing forged birth certificates. Some Congressmen just say that he is qualified because he is a “citizen” and completely ignore the Natural Born Citizen requirement such as Senator Diane Feinstein who is both on the Intelligence and the Judiciary committees. Some also reference the unsworn statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, of the Hawaii Department of Health as evidence when she does not have the qualifications to make the determination of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or if he is a Natural Born Citizen. Recently, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie stated publicly that he could not find or produce an original long form birth certificate for Obama – so this means that Fukino lied when she had seen an original birth certificate and many in Congress and millions of citizen relied on her unsworn statements. Also an embarrassment to our country is that U.S. congressmen relied on online and political organizations for “proof” that Obama is legally qualified to be POTUS. The following letters will further prove that Congress NEVER VETTED Obama. NOT ONE PERSON IN CONGRESS SAW A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA. A birth certificate would be the starting point to establish Natural Born Citizenship. To note, head of the DNC Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Obama as being Constitutionally qualified, failed to respond to my letters and emails. Senator

McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.

 

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

RICHARD SHELBY
ALABAMA

WASHINGTON,

DC 20510-0103

Ms. T e r r i Storm ~resident/CED Storm Consulting Group 4524 Park Avenue Bessenler, Alabama 35022-4184 Dear Ms. Storm: -fdrtaking -the t i m e t o i - m t a c t -me-outPresident-elect Thaw Barack Obamals citizenship status, I always appreciate hearing from my constituents. Under the United S t a t e s Constitution, Section 1 of Article I1 contains a clause that states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United S t a t e s , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the O f f i c e of President; neither shall any Person be e l i g i b l e to that Office w h o ahall. slot have attained t o the Age of t h i r t y five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United state^.^

Many have contacted me regarding the numerous claims and lawsuits circulating on the i n t e r n e t asserting that Obama is not a natural horn. c i t i z e n , and therefore ineligible to become United States President. However, President-elect Obama ha~lpresented h i a b i r t h certificate, showing that he was born in Hawaii, and it has been verified and confirmed by Hawaiian o f f i c i a 2 a . Additionally, t h e Supreme Court has declined to act on any of the cases contesting Obamats citizenship. On January 8 , 20D9, Members of Congress were given the opportunity to c o n t e s t the iesue in a j o i n t session of Congress, but no such obj e c y h w a s r s s e d during t G -meeting , By-all acc&&, President-elect Barack Obama meats those requirements. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation should further

--

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

Richard Shelby

JEFF SESSIONS
AfASAMA

mamY UWlW AND NATURAL W R C S

fwm-

sllOwF

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0104

January 23,2009

Mrs. Terri Storm 4524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama 35022

Dear Mrs. Storm:

Thank you for your recent letter re@ig
-

President Barack Obama.
I

As you are aware, stories have circulated that call i n t ~ question President Qbama's 7itizmship. Additionally, various lawsuits have b m filed alleging that Obama is not a natural e born citizen of the United States, and therefore is conshtionaIIy ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, hsident Obama released a digitally scanned image ofhis birth certificate, and Hawaii's Director ofthe State Department of Hdth, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity.
As you may know, on January 8,2009, Congress certified and d i e d the Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United
States.

-

I

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

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

--

--

---

-

- -.

.

-

-

- .

.

-.

-

1

United States Senator

JS:cd

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1

Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1

Filed 10/01/09 Page 2 of 2

With all of the evidence uncovered regarding the lack of vetting of Federal candiates on the ballot, I then thought that the states would be the same way and my assumptions proved to be correct. The next emails and documents prove that no one in the State of Illinois in any official capacity was required to view a birth certifcate for Barack Hussein Obama in his bid and election for the Illinois State Senate. Obama was also not required to complete a Federal I-9 Form to be able to receive pay and benefits. Consequently, again Obama could have been a noncitizen or illegal alien or non-citizen when serving as an Illinois Senator which is against the Illinois Constitution and Illinois election laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DOJ states that they are not responsible for vetting alleged fraud crimes relating to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications even though they are. look at the DOJ’s website for crimes they investigate. The DOJ instead states the Federal Election Commission is responsible for investigating which is untrue. See next page for letter that will also be filed under the Obstruction Chapter. See below for list of crimes that the FBI, which is under the DOJ, investigates. From the page What we investigate -Criminal Priorities 4. Public Corruption - Government Fraud - Election Fraud - Foreign Corrupt Practices http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

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

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

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 11

2012 Presidential Elections

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is running candidates in the

Peta Lindsay

PSL Candidate for President

PSL Candidate for Vice President

Yari Osorio

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is proud to announce that our party is fielding a slate of candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States in the 2012 elections.
PSL member and Howard University graduate Peta Lindsay is the PSL’s presidential candidate. PSL member Yari Osorio, an immigrant from Colombia now living in New York City, is the vice-presidential candidate. The party also will run candidates in various cities across the country. To learn more about the PSL’s participation in the 2012 elections, visit www.VotePSL.org.

Meet Peta Lindsay
Lindsay, 27, is a founding member of the PSL and a member of the PSL’s Central Committee. For over a decade, she has helped lead countless demonstrations across the country against imperialist wars, racism, budget cuts, tuition hikes, police brutality, anti-LGBT bigotry, and in support of immigrant rights, women’s rights and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and has been a tireless advocate for the rights of working people and for socialism.

Meet Yari Osorio
Osorio, 26, has helped to lead dozens of anti-war and anti-racist demonstrations in New York City and Washington, D.C. As a student at John Jay CUNY, he co-founded Justice in Action, a social justice club on campus, and helped organize for students’ rights across CUNY campuses. He helped lead the PSL’s campaign to stop the New York Police Department’s racist “stop and frisk” policy targeting Black and Latino working-class communities.

Chicago: 773-920-7590 Washington, D.C.: 202-234-2828 New York: 212-694-8762 Los Angeles: 323-810-3380 San Francisco: 415-821-6171

www.VotePSL.org

Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY
California's Feminist Socialist Political Party search...

Home

National

California

About Us

PFP Net

Contact Us

Membership

Articles

Calendar

Home

Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"
Share this

Posted on February 8, 2011 by the State Central Committee

The following press release and statement were issued by the State Central Committee of the

UPCOMING EVENTS
Ongoing - Solidarity with Occupy Wall St.

California Peace and Freedom Party on February 8, 2011. MEDIA RELEASE

February 8, 2012 For further information: C.T. Weber (916) 422-5395 or (916) 320-9186

WE SUPPORT ...
SECRETARY OF STATE LIST OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES CALLED "UNLAWFUL" AFTER PARTY'S CANDIDATES LEFT OFF JUNE 5 PRIMARY BALLOT SACRAMENTO – The Secretary of State's office has omitted two of the four Presidential candidates on the Peace and Freedom Party's primary ballot – and the independent party is demanding to know why. Join the Peace and Freedom Party's fund-raising campaign! Click here to drop $20.12 on us in 2012.

SEE IT NOW!
A NEWS CONFERENCE is scheduled at 10 a.m. Thursday (2-9-12) at the SOS office (11th & O Streets) to provide details. Peace and Freedom Party State Chairperson C. T. Weber will be present. SOS Debra Bowen has yet to respond, and in a statement issued today, Weber cites Elections Code sections that specify how presidential primary candidates are supposed to be selected by the Secretary of State, and suggests that code sections covering other parties may have improperly been applied to the Peace and Freedom Party candidates. "No Secretary of State has ever overruled our party's report listing our primary candidates," says Weber, "until this mistaken decision by Secretary Bowen." He also cites a failure by the Secretary of State to consult party county chairs, as specifically required in the Elections Code, and accuses Bowen of failing to consider as required by law the letter submitted to her by Weber on behalf of the Peace and Freedom Party State Executive Committee that listed all four candidates for inclusion. In the list announced Monday night, Bowen included Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson on the ballot, but omitted Peta Lindsay and Stephen Durham. Weber was unable to get an explanation when he went to the Secretary of State's Sacramento office the next morning, and reports that officials in the office refused to divulge what criteria Bowen used to make her choices, who was present at the meeting, where the criteria were developed, and whether Bowen herself was present at the meeting. Richard Becker of San Francisco, a spokesman for the Peta Lindsay campaign, calls the omission of her name "absolutely unjustifiable under the law." Candidate Stephen Durham of New York City says "I strongly object to the attempt by the California Secretary of State to steal away the rights of those who want to vote for a bona fide socialist feminist candidate for president." "Our voters are seriously considering four candidates, and they deserve to have the Secretary of State follow the law and list all four on the primary ballot," Weber said. WATCH THESE LIVE FEEDS Occupy Fresno Occupy Los Angeles Occupy Wall Street October 2011 Coalition (Washington)

PREAMBLE TO OUR BY-LAWS
The Peace and Freedom Party is an open, multi-tendency, movement-oriented socialist party. We are united in our common commitment to socialism, democracy, feminism and unionism and our common opposition to capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and elitism. These by-laws do not define socialism, nor do they identify the strategies and tactics of how to achieve socialism. We agree that socialism is necessary and that it will open up a democratic decisionmaking process for appropriate use of resources and distribution of labor.

UPDATES BY EMAIL
Subscribe to our email notification service and you will receive one email message each day there is an update to the front page.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

DONATE
Support our work to build an alternative party! Make an online donation to the Peace and Freedom Party now!

-30STATEMENT OF C.T. WEBER, PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY CALIFORNIA STATE CHAIR February 8, 2012 Late on February 6th Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office released her list of candidates for

SOCIAL NETWORKS

1 of 3

2/25/2012 10:47 PM

Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

Or mail your check made out to "Peace and Freedom Party" to PO Box 24764, Oakland, CA, 94623. Thank you.

President of the United States who would appear on the primary election ballots of the various parties in the presidential preference section. Breaking the precedent of the previous 36 years, this list for the first time omits many or most of the candidates reported to her by the state chairs of some of the political parties, including two of the four candidates that I reported to her were found by our State Executive Committee to be serious seekers of the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. (While Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson were listed, Stephan Durham and

Visit us on these networking and media sites. Facebook

WHO'S ONLINE
We have 68 guests online

Peta Lindsay were omitted.) Visiting her office yesterday, I found that her staff was determined to keep secret the criteria used by the Secretary of State in selecting her choices for the ballot, refused to tell me who attended the meeting at which the criteria were determined, refused to tell me whether Bowen was present at that meeting, and refused to justify in any way her omission of candidates who are clearly serious about obtaining the Peace and Freedom Party nomination, and generally considered serious candidates by party activists (and by their opponents). I was told, to my astonishment, that Bowen could list any names she pleased without any logical criteria at all. This is not what it says in the elections code. In fact, the Elections Code (section 6720) states that the Secretary of State shall include the names of candidates recognized throughout California as active candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for President. All four of the names submitted are in fact those of candidates who are recognized, and have some support, from all areas of California, as well as various other parts of the country. This may not be apparent from reports in the commercial media, but Peace and Freedom Party activists have never depended on the commercial media for their information about presidential candidacies, as the commercial media rarely mention our candidates at all. The publications of various groups on the left, the blogs and websites and e-mail lists used by those on the left to communicate with each other, and communication at meetings and rallies through word-of-mouth and leaflets, are the "media" used by Peace and Freedom members to learn about the various candidates who seek our presidential nomination. It appears possible that the Secretary of State may have unlawfully developed a list of criteria for selecting recognized candidates that is the same for candidates in all parties. In fact, the criteria in the election code differ for each party. For example, coverage in the news media is a legal criterion in the American Independent Party (EC section 6520), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. Qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act is included in the criteria for the Democratic Party (EC section 6041), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. The unjustifiable secrecy being maintained around the Secretary of State's list of criteria may conceal the mistaken and unlawful development of a common list of criteria for all parties, and if this is the case, the Secretary of State should come clean, and admit the mistake, while adding the improperly omitted candidates to the list for the ballot. The Elections Code (section 6721) provides that the Secretary of State shall ask the State Chair and the County Chairs of the Peace and Freedom Party for information regarding presidential candidates, and states that any information they wish to submit "will be considered by the Secretary of State." In fact, in 2012, the Secretary of State failed to make this request of the various County Chairs, although their names and contact information are available to her, and obviously failed to consider the information submitted by the State Chair on behalf of the State Executive Committee of the party. This is not a choice available to the Secretary of State under the law, but is a lapse and a failure to follow the law. While those omitted may circulate petitions among Peace and Freedom Party voters to have their names added, this is a serious burden that is not supposed to be imposed on generally recognized candidates. It is highly unfair to list two of the recognized candidates, but force the other two of them to put in substantial work and money to obtain the primary ballot access the first two have without this work and expenditure. The Elections Code (section 6722) states that the Secretary of State may add to her announced selections after the announcement is made. I strongly urge Secretary of State Bowen to consider the information now being submitted to her office to demonstrate that all four of the candidates reported to her by our party as serious candidates are indeed serious candidates, and announce at the earliest possible date the addition of the two omitted candidates to the list of those who will appear on the ballot. I further urge Secretary of State Bowen, who was elected and re-elected as the candidate who would make the functioning of her office more transparent, to release her criteria for selecting candidates for the presidential preference primary, the names of those present when those criteria were developed, and how those criteria were used to select two but omit two others on the list submitted by the Peace and Freedom Party's elected leadership.--C.T. Weber, California State Chair, Peace and Freedom Party

Twitter

MySpace

YouTube

Photobucket

2 of 3

2/25/2012 10:47 PM

Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?view=article&id=979

VOTER REGISTRATION
In California, voter registration is very important to political parties. The very existence of a political party as "ballot-qualified" is determined by the number of votes its statewide candidates receive or by the number of voters registered with the party. As the only feminist socialist political party on the California ballot, it is imperative that the Peace and Freedom Party continues as a qualified party. Quite simply, the Peace and Freedom Party will not be able to provide Californians with candidates that will represent us unless we register and vote Peace and Freedom. For more information about registering to vote in California, you can visit the Secretary of State's website.

RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY WEBSITE
List All Candidates for Peace and Freedom Primary 2012 Campaign Begins Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" A Proposal for Going National Peace and Freedom is Going National! Introducing the Peace and Freedom Alliance 2011-12-18 Occupy Peace and Freedom? in Oakland Support These Ballot Measures Occupy Oakland & Organized Labor Plan to Shut Down Port Small Parties Sue to Block Prop. 14 Attacks Mislead the Public Forum on the Occupy Movement, November 12 in Los Angeles Workers and War, November 5 in Berkeley City of Oakland Special Election Let them fail: Krugman agrees with Ruyle on solving the fiscal crisis, sort of

3 of 3

2/25/2012 10:47 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

Subject: From: To: Date:

this fact needs to be brought up -Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for Constitutional P. B. (pb_realestate@yahoo.com) cestrunck@yahoo.com; Monday, March 12, 2012 2:07 PM

Ed, talked with this Toni that received the email from the SOS and confirmed it was a true copy to him.. she said she would get it notarized but as expected the leftist didn't come through. Ed will notarize this email for an exhibit. also is the flyer that is referred to on her website as an exhibit and the peace and freedom press release all attached. we need to show the ultra vires to get the judge to hear this before the ballot is finalized and the supplement is passed. pamela
----- Forwarded Message ----From: P. B. <pb_realestate@yahoo.com> To: Christopher Strunk <cestrunck@yahoo.com>; Edward C. Noonan <ednoonan7@gmail.com>; POLITCAL George Miller <microcapmaven@aol.com> Cc: Mark Seidenbert <hakohen3@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:16 PM Subject: Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for Constitutional

see below for proof of SOS vetting candidate for 2012 potus ballot for consitutional qualifications. Pamela
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Markham Robinson <mark@masterplanner.com> To: 'P. B.' <pb_realestate@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:53 PM Subject: RE: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino From: Kevin Akin [mailto:kevinakin1950@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:39 PM To: mark@masterplanner.com Subject: FW: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino Mark, I hope you will pardon me for using the AIP as a bogey-man in my e-mail to the Secretary of State's office. You really should have a copy of the e-mail (just below mine) from the Secretary of State's office to Toni

1 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

Mendocino. In it, they acknowledge assessing the constitutional qualifications of a candidate, and excluding her from the ballot on this basis. Thought this might interest you! -Kevin

From: kevinakin1950@hotmail.com To: constituent.affairs@sos.ca.gov Subject: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:17:42 -0800 Dear anonymous person from Legislative and Constituent Affairs. I have received a much-forwarded copy of the e-mail below. I am a member of the Peace and Freedom Party California Executive Committee (and Chair of our National Organizing Committee), and have served three terms as State Chair. I am apparently more familiar with the Peace and Freedom Party sections of the Elections Code than whoever wrote this astonishing response to Ms. Mendocino. I am even more astonished by some of the oral responses we have received from various people in your office. For example, Charlene Castaneda (I think I got her name right) told one caller that the Secretary of State's decision on whom to include was "irreversible." This is clearly contrary to the plain language of the Elections Code: (EC6722) "Following this announcement, the Secretary of State may add to her or his selection, but she or he may not delete any candidate whose name appears on the announced list." What part of this sentence does your office not understand? The code says names may be added, but your office says they may not. It appears to have escaped your office's attention that different standards are found in the code section for each political party as to what names should be included. "Being referred to in the news media" is in fact included in a section of the Elections Code, but it is the section governing the American Independent Party (EC6520). This was intentionally not included in the Peace and Freedom Party section (EC6720). So holding a candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination to the standard set for the American Independent Party's candidates is clearly improper and unlawful. Federal Election Commission filings are mentioned - but not in the PFP section of the code. Several of our low-budget presidential nominees have not in fact had a campaign office, but in the past this did not keep them off the ballot presumably because the Secretary of State's staff read the Elections Code, and noted that this is not a requirement for PFP candidates. I am going to leave aside for the moment the question of Peta Lindsay. Let me take up Stephen Durham. At the time your announcement was made, he was a generally-recognized candidate for the PFP nomination throughout California (as you were correctly advised by State Chair C.T. Weber). This is the ONLY hurdle he was supposed to clear, according to our section of the code. But by dragging in criteria from other parties' sections of the code, and doing a really sloppy job of research, you invented reasons to omit him. While he only filed with the FEC some hours before your announcement was made, he had in fact filed at the time the announcement was made. However, this was not really a requirement. At the time your announcement was made, he already had two premises (both the standard storefronts usually used in campaigns, one in Los Angeles and one in San Francisco ) that served as campaign offices. (He has others around the country as well.) But apparently no one in your office thought to call up his campaign and ask. I am sure they would have been happy to give you the addresses. Stephen Durham has a campaign website (though this is clearly not a legal requirement, as this code section was adopted in 1975, when no one at all had a website). You may find its address, and a link to it, on the Peace and Freedom Party website, along with links to the other three campaign websites. Could it actually be true that no one looked on our party website in their wonderfully exhaustive research?

2 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

No debates among Peace and Freedom Party candidates have yet taken place, and this has almost always been the case at this point on the presidential election year calendar. I am afraid you have confused us with the Republican Party. This is one reason why our code section does not mention participation in debates as a criterion. Several debates are now scheduled (three in April, for example), and it is understood that Stehen Durham will participate in some of those. I have already demonstrated that media coverage is not a requirement in our code section. But in fact, of course, Stephen Durham is mentioned in many media reports, and was from the date he announced his candidacy. Do your office computers not have a connection to Google? Mine does, and I can find an amazing number of reports, mentions, and even extensive articles. They are generally not in the billionnaires' newspapers, but that is not where Peace and Freedom Party members look for information about their presidential candidates. Whoever flubbed the job so shamefully in researching the legal criteria for Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary candidates also seems to have overlooked the most important part of this section of the code (EC6721, "Secretary of State to send letter to central committees." It says that the SoS is to send a letter by first-class mail to each Peace and Freedom Party County Central Committee (addresses easily available both from the various Registrars of Voters, and through various links on our website), by the 150th day before the primary election, "informing them that, while a response is not required, any information they wish to submit will be considered by the Secretary of State in the determination of candidates to be placed on the Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary ballot pursuant to Section 6720." Now that, I think, is as clear as anyone could make it. As it happens, I have been the County Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party in Riverside County for many years (though I hope to turn that over to someone else soon), and over the years I have received a number of such letters from previous Secretaries of State. But not this year. I didn't get such a letter, and none of my fellow county chairs around the state got such a letter. That is because the present Secretary of State either was ignorant of this code section, or decided to defy it. No such letter was sent. Absent input from the various county central committees, the office of the Secretary of State apparently decided to just wing it - and crashed. Most of the county central committees would have advised the Secretary of State that there are four recognized candidates for our presidential nomination, and given their names. A few county central committees might have omitted one or another name, but the pattern would have been clear. Let me just make a point about Peta Lindsay, the presidential candidate (who certainly has a very active campaign!) who is reportedly 27 years old. Her age is of course a factor in whether she is likely to gain the nomination, but that should be up to the voters and State Central Committee members who will make the decision. In actual fact, the very first presidential nominee of California 's Peace and Freedom Party, back in 1968, was not yet 35 years of age. The Secretary of State at that time had the ballots printed without his name, and only the name of the Vice-Presidential candidate was on the ballot over the Peace and Freedom Party name to represent our slate of electors. But the Secretary of State did not put his heavy thumb on the scales in our intra-party consideration of whom to nominate. He accepted the slate of candidates for elector, and the Party's name went on the ballot. I understand that the Secretary of State won a lawsuit a while back (brought by some American Independent Party leaders) seeking to force her to review the actual constitutional qualifications of various parties' nominees. She won, on the basis that it is up to the parties to select their nominees and do their own consideration of constitutional eligibility, and no business of the Secretary of State. Now the Secretary of State has taken the opposite tack, which I would think would open up this whole question again. I have already received reports that the AIP is delighted that the SoS has been so foolish as to reveal, in writing, that she does in fact look at constitutional eligibility - when it suits her. You may be sure that next time the birthers in the AIP bring suit, they will be armed with full information about the Peta Lindsay case, proving that the SoS only takes that position when she likes. You would be far wiser to accept the fact that Peta Lindsay is a serious and generally recognized candidate for our nomination, and go ahead and list her. As your response to Ms. Mendocino was (rather strangely) anonymous, I do not know who wrote or sent

3 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

it. So I am sending this e-mail to the same address from which it came, and also sending blind copies to at least a dozen other people who work in the Secretary of State's office, in hopes that someone will read it and respond to me. I would truly appreciate being advised that someone has, at last, read the relevant sections of the Elections Code, and recognized that the Secretary of State may add to the list of presidential preference candidates she is putting on the ballot. While the campaigns are preparing to demand ballot placement through petition, this is a big burden that they don't need. It should be perfectly clear by now, to any but the most wrong-headed and stubborn, that all four candidates are in fact recognized throughout California as candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. This is the only requirement in the Elections Code, and the two omitted candidates should be added. I would appreciate a response. Executive Committee Kevin Akin 20212 Harvard Way Riverside, California 92507 home (951) 787-0318 cell (951) 675-2813 kevinakin1950@hotmail.com -Kevin Akin, member of the Peace and Freedom Party California

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs" <Constituent.Affairs@sos.ca.gov> To: t_mendicino@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now!

Dear  Ms. Mendicino: Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State about the individuals in the Peace and Freedom Party who were not included in the Secretary of State's Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates List for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.  To determine whether a person is "generally recognized" as actively running for president, the Secretary of State's office looks at whether a candidate is actively running a presidential campaign, such as having a campaign office, a campaign website,  making Federal Election Commission filings, participating in debates,  and  being referred to in  the news media.  Absent embarking on or completing any of these basic tasks, a person certainly could not be considered a "generally recognized" candidate. In addition,  the Secretary of State's office reviewed Peta Lindsay's website where the candidate states she is 27 years old.  Since the United States Constitution states "...neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years...", Peta Lindsay does not qualify as a presidential candidate for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.  

4 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

People in any political party who still wish to be included on the California ballot as a presidential candidate may circulate nomination petitions, the procedure for which is included in the Qualification and Requirements document, found on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012‐elections/june‐primary/pdf/minor‐party‐president‐2012.pdf. The Secretary of State takes very seriously the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the ballot and the entire electoral process is maintained.  Sincerely, Legislative and Constituent Affairs Secretary of State

From: Toni Mendicino [mailto:t_mendicino@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:36 PM To: Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs Cc: Secretary of State Bowen Subject: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now! Dear Secretary of State Bowen, I spoke on February 9 with your analyst Philly Crosby about this matter, rather unsatisfactorily; she instructed me to send you a letter. I am the Bay Area Freedom Socialist 2012 Presidential Campaign coordinator and strongly protest your exclusion of our candidate, Stephen Durham, from the Peace and Freedom Party primary ballot, along with Peta Lindsay. An egregious mistake has been made by your office in this decision and I urge you to rectify it immediately as is in your legal purview and as is your responsibility as the Secretary of State. Our candidate most certainly does meet the California election code criteria and has the full backing of the Peace and Freedom Party. We have not received an explanation for your arbitrary decision despite numerous inquiries, which is frankly unacceptable. I also request that I be given a response about how and when you will reverse this illegal action. What you did violated our rights as working people to vote for the candidates we support and is part of a national context of attempts to deny the right to vote to millions of poor, working and immigrant people. Do you really want to be on that side of history? This situation is particularly ironic given your 2011 Congressional race slogan, "Democracy For All, Right Here in America !" I hope you will do the right thing and list all the Peace and Freedom Party candidates on the ballot, and I look forward to hearing back from you about this timely issue.

5 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Print

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fquqrget4ucnm

Sincerely, Toni Mendicino Bay Area Freedom Socialist Party and Campaign Coordinator 415-730-2917 (cell) P Save the Earth, one page at a time. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

6 of 6

3/12/2012 2:15 PM

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 12

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law. The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none. The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.” The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 1 of 9

authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits. The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support. The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws of the United States." The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 2 of 9

of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.” Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause. Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 3 of 9

have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875. Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a 'natural born Citizen' using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial." This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen." Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship). Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wong Kim Ark, at 686. Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 4 of 9

minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law. Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents. Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so. Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another. Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a "natural born Citizen" when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “naturalborn citizen” in Minor. The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue. Hence, its statement that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 5 of 9

Ankeny was advisory on the "natural born Citizen" issue because it gave us its definition of a "natural born Citizen" but never applied that definition to Obama's personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a "natural born Citizen" to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a "natural born Citizen" is purely advisory. To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.” The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama's eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the nonmoving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint. The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 6 of 9

United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.” So, any citation to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen” is. In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Judge Malihi's definition must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen." The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural born Citizen" which means a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted. A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parents requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parents requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 7 of 9

"subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) "born . . . citizen of the United States" can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a "subject to the jurisdiction" analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II "natural born Citizen," who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States" who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship. If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and longstanding definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them. So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States. A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 8 of 9

soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the United States. Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born. Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States. Clearly, “considered” does not mean found. Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot. Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading. The timehonored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ #### Copyright © 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 9 of 9

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 13

FILED
OSAl l

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIW HEARINGS STATE OF GEORGIA
DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY, THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH, Plaintiffs, v. BARACK OBAMA, Defendant. DAVID P. WELDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
:

FEB 0 3 2012

:
Valcric
111111;Legal

/\ssistiil~t

: :

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

:
:

: :

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215137-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. hion Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

BARACK OBAMA,
:

Defendant. CART, SWENSSON, Plaintiff,
v.
:

: :

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216218-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff J. Mark Hatfield Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

BARACK OBAMA,
:

Defendant.

KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
: : :

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216823-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

BARACK OBAMA,
:

Defendant.

DECISION^
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant President Barack Obama does not meet Georgia's eligibility requirements for candidacy in Georgia's 2012 presidential primary election. Georgia law mandates that candidates meet constitutional and statutory requirements for the office that they seek. O.C.G.A.

5 21-2-5(a).

Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal

office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States. Id. The United States Constitution requires that a President be a "natural born [clitizen." U.S. Const. art. 11, 5 1, cl. 5. As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs' challenges to this Court for a hearing. O.C.G.A.

5 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on

January 26, 2012. .The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden and his counsel Van R. Irion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the

This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section I1 applies to all Plaintiffs.

1

Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

I.

Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al.

Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth contend that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use h s legal name on his notice of candidacy, which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (P1.s' Am. Compl. 3.) At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)-(9). The weight

to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-. 18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations.3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony fi-om several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth
Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was sworn and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz step-down and submit any further testimony in writing.
3

The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-iurv cases that " . discretion lies with the judge. See Mustang Transp., Inc. v. W.W. Lowe & Sons, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 350, 352 (1971).

certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective

threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Dufee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.

11.

Application of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement

Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary election. As indicated supra, the United States Constitution states that "[nlo person except a natural born Citizen. . . shall be eligible for the Office of the President U.S. Const. art. 11, 5 1, cl. 5. For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1)

. . . .'4

I

Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and
issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an

I
I

eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was
The definition of this clause has been the source of much debate. See, e.g., Gordon, a o Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988); Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349 (2000); William T. Han, Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010).
4

ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempting to ascertain the definition of "natural born citizen" because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685-86; See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) ("The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."); see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (noting that the only mention of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution is in Article 11, and the term is not defined in the Constitution). The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I1 (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685 (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV,

8 1. ("All persons born or

naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the fiamers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-68. Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court's decision in Minor as
defining natural born citizens as only "children born in a country of parents who were its

citizens." 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen. Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment and "natural born citizen of the United States" in Article I1 to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.

. . ."

Id. at 686

(citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that "[tlhe interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are fiamed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (internal citation omitted). The Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents,

became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.' Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at
705.

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King. 169 U.S. at 655. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. Id. at 658. Further: Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. f Id. at 660 (quoting Inglis v. Trustees o Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J., concurring)). And: The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. Id. at 662 (quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 576 (1856) (Curtis, J., dissenting)). Finally: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. Id. at 662-63 (quoting United States v. Rhodes, (1866) (Mr. Justice Swayne)).

Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article 11, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [I natural-born citizens." 916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
i
I

SO ORDERED, February 3rd,2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

6

This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048 PAMELA BARNETT’S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING

Exhibit 14

Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012)
Barack Obama Obama for America PO Box 803638 Chicago, IL 60680 Phone: (312) 698-3670 Website: www.barackobama.com Newt Gingrich Newt 2012 PO Box 550769 Atlanta, GA 30355 Phone: (678) 973-2306 Website: www.newt.org Fred Karger Fred Karger for President 2745 Woodstock Rd Los Angeles, CA 90046 Phone: (202) 365-2321 Website: www.fredkarger.com Ron Paul Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee 8000 Forbes Pl, Ste 200 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: (703) 563-6620 Website: www.ronpaul2012.com Charles E. “Buddy” Roemer, III Buddy Roemer for President PO Box 84877 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Phone: (603) 782-4812 Website: www.buddyroemer.com Mitt Romney Mitt Romney for President PO Box 149756 Boston, MA 02114-9756 Phone: (857) 288-3500 Website: www.mittromney.com Rick Santorum Rick Santorum for President PO Box 37 Verona, PA 15147 Phone: (888) 321-6675 Website: www.ricksantorum.com Democratic

Republican

Republican

Republican

Republican

Republican

Republican

Page 1 of 3

Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012)
Edward C. Noonan 1713 11th Ave Olivehurst, CA 95961 Mad Max Riekse PO Box 82 Fruitport, MI 49415 Laurie Roth 2903 Maple St Longview, WA 98632 Roseanne Barr Roseanne for President 2012 214 Main St #293 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (646) 423-8383 Website: www.roseanneforpresident.com Kent Mesplay Mesplay for President 5173 Waring Rd #204 San Diego, CA 92120 Email: info@mesplay.org Website: www.mesplay.org Jill Stein Jill Stein for President PO Box 260217 Madison, WI 53726-0217 Email: hq@jillstein.org Website: www.jillstein.org Roger Gary 1119 W Ashby Pl San Antonio, TX 78201 R. J. Harris 3334 W Main St Box 402 Norman, OK 73072 Gary Johnson 280 S 400 W Ste 220 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 American Independent

American Independent

American Independent

Green

Green

Green

Libertarian

Libertarian

Libertarian

Page 2 of 3

Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012)
Scott Keller 8754 Handel Loop Land O Lakes, FL 34637 James Ogle 715 9th St Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Carl Person 325 W 45th St Ste 201 New York, NY 10036-3803 Bill Still 44564 Blue Ridge Meadows Dr Ashburn, VA 20147 Barbara Joy Waymire 2710 County Rd 202 Tulelake, CA 96134-9286 Lee Wrights 109 Latigo Dr Burnet, TX 78611 Stewart Alexander 40485 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd #149 Murrieta, CA 92563 Phone: (909) 223-2067 Email: stewartalexander4paf@ca.rr.com Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson 314 W 300 S Ste 225 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 990-5300 Phone: (801) 557-9007 Email: rockyanderson.justice@gmail.com Stephen Durham* 762 Riverside Dr., #3A New York, NY 10031 Phone: (206) 985-4621 Email: votesocialism@gmail.com Website: www.socialism.com Libertarian

Libertarian

Libertarian

Libertarian

Libertarian

Libertarian

Peace and Freedom

Peace and Freedom

Peace and Freedom

* Added February 28, 2012, to the list of Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates

Page 3 of 3

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

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

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION That this is the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Ex Parte Petitioner

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 1 of 22

Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of a Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 29, 2012 on the merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent

1 2 3 4 5

Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012 by Respondents’ counsel Fredric D. Woocher Esq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation is in support of an alternative writ for a expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits of the evidence proffered to date before the ballot printing deadline of March 29, 2012 that

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

sufficient also to require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that a continuance must be granted for Petitioner’s response schedule as to the California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s Demurrer with Memorandum filed February 16, 2012 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. Hakl, Esq. with return date of April 20, 2012, and that the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented based upon the March 1, 2012 the release by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Office of the COLD CASE POSSE of the preliminary report shown in exhibit; and further, that the Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writ is heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason requires an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 2 of 22

Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby stayed from printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to be held on June 5, 2012 any of the names of the electors slates for the purported candidates for the office of POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance of Respondents or by his / her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted.

1 2 3 4 5

Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, shall appear or by his / her attorney show cause at this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, by March 26, 2012 , at 9:00 o’clock in the forenoon or as soon as counsel may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the Electoral College requiring that each

6 7 8 9

declared candidate be a natural born citizen. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3……………………………………………………………………………20

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Article 2, Section 1 ……………………………………………………………………………….………6,20 13th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………..14,15,20 14th Amendment………………………………………………………………………………………….13-16, California Constitution Article 2, Section 5 …………………………………………………………….………………………….. 21 Article 20 the Oath of office………………………………………………………………………………21 California Statues California Government Code §12172.5 ……………………………………….…….……..……. California Elections Code § 6041 …………………………………………………………….……….. California Elections Code § 6901 …………………………………………………………….……….. California Elections Code § 13314 …………………………………………………………………..21 California Civil Code § 1104 ………………………………………………. California Civil Code § 1109 ………………………………………………. California Cases

Keyes v. Bowen case No. C062321. - CA Court of Appeals..…………….…..…………..5 Robinson v. Bowen, (189 Cal.App.4th at p.661………………………………………….……….…6
Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012) citing: In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592;
Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 3 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 Cal. 56. Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.)………………………21 Federal Cases

Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875)………………………………………………………..…18,
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)……………………………………………………….19,

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)………………………………………………………….. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)………………………………………………………………………
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)……………………………………………………………19 Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884)…………………………………………………………………………...19 Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393…………………………………………………………………………..20 Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73……………………………………………………….20 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306……………………………………………20

Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111……………………………..18
Federal Statutes: 3 U.S.C. section 15 Federal Forms: U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application for renewal Georgia State Cases: OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS for the STATE OF GEORGIA Docket Numbers: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215136-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215137-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216218-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216823-60-MALIHI; Administrative trial court decision citing:

Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 …………..14
Memorandum of Law by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. shown as Exhibit 12 …………………………….14

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 4 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Re: the February 3, 2012 Judge Malihi Decision shown as Exhibit 13………………………….14

The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel

and Joseph Chitty at Section 212………………………………………………………………………………..…19 Congressional Globe at p. 1862 of the 37th Congress 2nd ses. p. 1639………………………..15

The 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866………………………………………………………………………….15 the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883…………………………………………………16-18 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery………………………………………….6 III. An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports That all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives………….…7 IV. V. That Respondent Obama’s 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery……….7 That Respondent Obama is suspect of not being born in the USA as a result that Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence………………………………….….8 VI. VII.
VIII.

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

II.

That Respondent Obama made an Admission against Interest…………………………11 That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands…………………………………………………….11
That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine……..12

IX.

As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure “Natural-Born Citizen” conflation by Public Officers and Respondents……………..13

X.
25 26 27 28

The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict With Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates ……………..21 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………..………………….……………………….………22

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 5 of 22

1 2 3 4 5

An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery That subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release shown as Exhibit 2 and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE , as

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as Exhibit 3 is the subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 4 supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote: “Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:. • • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly,

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 6 of 22

1 2 3 4 5

records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “ An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives That in addition to the evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before the

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provides the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence and usurp the office of POTUS. That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 5 is a forged

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 7 of 22

document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript shown as Exhibit 6; and The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2007 proffered CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the

1 2 3 4 5

April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released whne if fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the alleged request was made to Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

released in 2008 is stamped June 6, 2007 shown at Exhibit 7 as the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do

Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the
foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence according to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines “spoliation” as, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document” (1). Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and negligent

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 8 of 22

installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to negligence, but in some instances the loss is occasioned by intentional and willful conduct. Elements of Spoliation Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is

1 2 3 4 5

variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and against whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories: 1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit for which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and 2) whether

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable “negligent” spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and egregious intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of an independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim: 1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff; 2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is probable; 3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; 4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and 5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 9 of 22

That although the State of California does recognize a separate cause of action for spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Respondent Obama from using the defenses that were referenced in the respective demurrer as a matter of defense claimed. That the California Court’s recognition of an intentional spoliation claim was eventually overruled by the California Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511

1 2 3 4 5

(Ca. 1998). Today, California – the birthplace of the independent spoliation cause of action – does not recognize the tort as a stand alone claim. However, as this case may be the Respondent OBAMA White House website has removed the multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 2011 and has not only “flattened the” pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 10 of 22

to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP) provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort. In California, the independent tort of spoliation was eliminated in favor of applying the remedy within the pending litigation as a discovery sanction. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v.

Superior Court (1998), 18 Cal. 4th 1, 12. In federal courts, the spoliation concept was
recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNA---Krause et al. Claimants, infra, is based on the inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and often arises from a request for a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington Arms (8th Cir 1988), 836 F.2d 1104 , 1111. Wigington v. CB Richard Ellis (10/24/03 N.D.Ill) [p.7 slip opinion. "A party has a duty to preserve evidence over which it had control and 'reasonably knew or could reasonably foresee was material to a potential legal action.' ..."A party must preserve evidence that is properly discoverable under Rule 26. Discoverable evidence includes electronic data such as e-mail."..."A party does not have to go to extraordinary measures to preserve all potential evidence...It does not have to preserve every single scrap of

1 2 3 4 5

paper in its business...But a party must preserve evidence that it has notice is reasonably likely to be the subject of a discovery request even before a request is actually received.... Notice may be received before a complaint is filed if a party knows that litigation is likely to begin, or a party may be alerted by the complaint...."] That Respondent Obama made an Admissions against Interest

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

That Respondent Obama’s mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 8 as well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 9 affirms has never used another name on his law license application, and further that Respondent Obama agents as shown in the transcript Exhibit 6 in regards to Exhibit 7 are all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a statement of another that reveals something incriminating, embarrassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability. In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 11 of 22

That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore,

1 2 3 4 5

plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue. For example, if a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant may

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign the contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is shown that the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue at hand. In another example, when a brokerage firm claimed that its confidential client information was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not come to court with “clean hands” since the court found that firm demonstrated a similar lack of regard for the competitor's confidential client information when it snared the same broker six years earlier. The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues, specifically in cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in awarding support and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting any relief requested by Respondent

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 12 of 22

Obama and his agents in the February 15, 2012 Demurrer. That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine Notwithstanding the above assorted list of bars to Respondent Obama claiming a defense of laches paramount are the spoliation and concealment that have injured Petitioner along with those similarly , who nevertheless filed a timely petition within the statutory time as with any of the candidate involved also and thereby for the Respondent

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

Obama to invoke laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches as a form of estoppel for delay. In most contexts, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party invoking the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded, or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the meantime, or the property in question may already have been sold, or evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend against the claim. Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of asserting laches is on the party responding to the claim to which it applies. “When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss.” Solow v. Nine

West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001); Simons v. United States,
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 13 of 22

452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers “reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay”) As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure “Natural-Born Citizen” conflation by Public Officers and Respondents As the Petitioner’s affirmation shown with Exhibit 8 in the letter of the members of Congress and various public officers including the various Courts having made serious

1 2 3 4 5

errors as evident in Exhibit 13 and by the analysis provided in Exhibit 12 by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of Ankeny and Georgia Malihi decision as well as the CA SOS instruction to use the 14th Amendment “Born a Citizen” idiom rather than the term of art “natural-born Citizen” in direct contradiction the instructions shown on Exhibit 1 goes to not only gross negligence in the collapse of our education system but to the malice involved with

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

partisan vires ultra bias favoring the Respondent Obama herein in breach of the inherent duty created for all public officers in the sworn oath required with CA Const Article 20. The history of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6, 1865, and the 14th amendment, which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868. So they were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 14 of 22

for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed, and that the left/progressives have totally perverted the 14th Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. To truly understand the 14th Amendment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you, must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates. The logical legislators to research in regard to debates is Senator Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause and co-author of the 13th amendment to abolish slavery was Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment. Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson; and in the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation Representative John Bingham as reported in the Congressional Globe at page 1862 of the 37th Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated: “there is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians...” Next according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 “A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the “ Then A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 15 of 22

1 2 3 4 5

“In section 1, line 3, after the word “That,” insert, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,” On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, it was determined in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over the House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull’s amendment. John

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying: ” I find no fault with the introduction clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;” The bill was then sent to President Johnson, and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President’s veto; and the next in Chronologically on to the 14th amendment as the congressional debates as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been perverted, The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if 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.” During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction. Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech stated … “Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its
Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 16 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the Unites States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. ..” And Senator Edgar Cowen goes further to state:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 17 of 22

“I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a brad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of poring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the Unites States… I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that.” That on the matter of anchor babies is regards to how the term jurisdiction would be applied. And agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the proposed law and that as such Mr. Howard said quote: “ 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 their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and or in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. National law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born overseas. ..” In regards to jurisdiction Mr. Trumbull at 1866 in the Congressional Globe 2893 said “The provisions is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navaho Indian are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the Unites States.?” Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means.” In response Senator Howard responds quote: “ I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “juris diction, “ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett stated “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. In SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 – M’Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the Law of Nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated. The Chief Justice goes on to say:

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 18 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is as satisfactory ‘3 “the answer to the foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each.” In the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice Marshal stated “ 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 advantage. The natives or indigenizes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and too perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” The law of nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty “Section 212. The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to 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.” In regards to Kim Wong Ark in Chester Arthur and Justice Gray in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 Decided November 3, 1884, and it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 19 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

“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 a uniform rule of naturalization” US Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3. 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 Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 20 of 22

persons, white of 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 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. In the matter of the Oath to be taken to America for purposes of naturalized citizenship: “I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God.” Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take the oath, simple as that! Vattel’s authority as an institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations. The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict with Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012 before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility of the CA SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express direction from the Legislature, records that Petitioners/Plaintiffs standing has properly

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 21 of 22

accrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As

Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012)[41]
“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.” AND “Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. AND Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This Court agrees.” (emphasis added)

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

CONCLUSION This Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner’s evidence that Barack Obama was at least “Born a Citizen” under the 14th Amendment definition rather than a “natural-born Citizen”, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even “Born a Citizen” in the USA per se; and further, supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, concealment of records, admissions against interest under POTUS control that substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012. The Court must order: • • • • • Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm; Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred from the ballot proving that he is actually a “natural-born Citizen” born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents; A Peremptory Writ for Stay of CA SOS ballot printing until further order; A denial of the Respondent Obama et al. February 15, 2012 Demurrer in its entirety; A continuance grant for CA SOS opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March 26, 2012 is decided; • A continuance in scheduling on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the Alternative writ; • • A continuance in scheduling with sufficient reason that would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc. For further and different relief that the Court deems necessary for speedy justice herein. Respectfully Submitted, Date: March ___, 2012 ____ California ________________________ Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner of the Ad Hoc California registered voters with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Telephone: 530-845-5186

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pamela Barnett’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 22 of 22

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful