US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

From google cache. Links don’t work sometimes. This information is from Leo’s extensive work on his blog that was deleted but was still in the google cache. Use it for reference and study in the future.

US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.

A thorough review of national security clearance guidelines and federal statutes indicates that various heads of government agencies in charge of disseminating classified information should deny access to classified information to President Obama unless and until he undergoes a statutory background check and achieves a proper security clearance.

This article stipulates that it is common practice for the FBI to grant full security clearance to elected officials such as Congressman and Senators. The same courtesy has been extended to the office of President and Vice President. This is done in recognition that these elected officials represent the will of the American people.

However, federal law mandates that if such courtesy conflicts with national security then agency heads are expected to deny access to classified information. In President Obama we have a Commander In Chief who admits to having been a British citizen as well as a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, President Obama may still be a a British citizen and/or subject. He may have also been a citizen of Indonesia.

We just don’t know the answers to these questions because he just won’t answer them.

US Defense Security Service guidelines are very clear in that persons with past allegiance to foreign nations are to undergo security checks to determine whether such allegiance is dangerous to the US:

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. The exercise of dual citizenship;

b. Possession and/or use of a foreign passport;

c. Military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;

d. Accepting educational, medical, or other benefits, such as retirement and social welfare, from a foreign country;

f. Residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;

g. Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;

h. Seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;

h. Voting in foreign elections; and

i. Performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

a. Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;

b. Indicators of possible foreign preference (e.g., foreign military service) occurred before obtaining United States citizenship;

c. Activity is sanctioned by the United States;

d. Individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.

Above Information Courtesy of Defense Security Service (DSS) (Emphasis added.)

——————————

The government security guidelines examine whether the person has renounced his foreign citizenship. The issue of whether Obama is still a British citizen or subject must be addressed by a proper US government background clearance examination since it appears President Obama has never renounced his UK citizenship or subject status.

A forthcoming report at this blog will detail the intricacies of British nationality law with regard to whether President Obama is currently under the domain of the UK. But this should be done by our government officials as well. If he is under their domain, he’s also under the domain of the European Union.

Federal Statute 50 USC 435. Executive Order 12968.

50 USC 435 is the federal statute concerned with the classification of sensitive information. It empowered Executive Order 12968 which was enacted by President Clinton in 1995. These laws provide the Executive Branch rules for granting security clearance to classified information.

EO 12968 exempts the President and the Vice President from having to pass a security clearance examination. However, both 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 contain the same exact safety provision empowering agency heads to deny access to classified information upon their own discretion.

50 USC 435 states:

Subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to other law or Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information if the national security so requires. Such responsibility and power may be exercised only when the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed by subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with the national security.

Executive order 12968 Section 5.2 (e) states:

(e) This section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to any law or other Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information in the interests of national security. The power and responsibility to deny or terminate access to classified information pursuant to any law or other Executive order may be exercised only where the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed in subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with national security. This determination shall be conclusive.

Since the President and Vice President are exempted from these regulations, the regulations can’t be invoked in a manner consistent with national security. As such, any agency head who determines that providing the President with classified information is inconsistent with national security may withhold such information.

According to law, such a determination is conclusive. No review is even possible.

President Obama should submit to a full security clearance examination before a national crisis takes place. Agency heads who continue to provide classified information to President Obama do so at the risk of national security. President Obama was a citizen of at least two foreign nations and his passport history is unknown. It appears that he may still be legally subject to the monarchy of Great Britain. This would trigger issues concerning the Master Nationality Rule whenever Obama stands on British soil.

These issues are not trivial. But for Obama being President, he would have to provide everything discussed in the Defense Security guidelines. He is also charged with enforcing those very same guidelines. How can he enforce them with a straight face if he’s never submitted to them himself?

President Obama has never officially renounced or denied his British citizenship. And he has admitted that he was a British citizen at birth. His past is so intertwined with various other nations that it is impossible, without a proper security clearance examination, for agency heads to forward classified information to him without concern. Government agency heads in charge of releasing classified information have the undeniable legal right to deny the President classified information.

Until President Obama’s passport and citizenship status in other nations is thoroughly determined, agency heads who forward him classified information do so with unknown risks to national security.

There are too many unknowns with regard to past allegiance to foreign powers for such information to be passed on safely. Agency heads cannot afford to be shy or afraid of backlash. Their decision is legally conclusive.

There is no transparency here and I do not see why the President himself is not calling for a proper background check on himself.

Why put the agency heads in this position?

It would be a proper start to necessary transparency if Obama would discuss whether he’s ever held a foreign passport and whether he’s ever traveled under a foreign passport. He should also take the official steps necessary to renounce his prior foreign citizenship.

That’s what a statesman would do.

This entry was posted on August 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
82 Responses to “US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.”

1.
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Oh, this is a beautiful post.

You say “…various heads of government agencies in charge of disseminating classified information should deny access to classified information to President Obama…” Do the agency heads get to use their own discretion in determining if BHO gets clearance or are they mandated to fully check everyone receiving classified info?

In other words, how is this enforced if at all? We obviously can’t ask or expect BHO to REALLY be a statesman. It’s kinda like the women at the DoH–he’ll let them field a million calls and inquiries about his BC instead of just coughing up his records–he’s happy to let other agency heads take the heat on this, you know?

[Ed. Under the guidelines, the Pres and VP are exempt from the regulations – except that the agency heads can deny anyone access to classified info if national security cannot be maintained by invoking the regulations. A determination by an agency head in this regard is – by the very letter of Executive Order 12968 – CONCLUSIVE. So the President can’t do anything about it. Even if the agency heads decide to stare at the emperor’s new clothes by feeding him classfied info, at least they will have culpability if anything treasonous should occur.]
2.
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Correction: When you manipulate others and how they do their jobs, and you force them to have to do your dirty work rather than cough up your vital records and passport(s)–you aren’t a statesman, you aren’t even a MAN.
3.
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Nice graphic BTW–how did you get an official clearance badge?
4.
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM

It takes a couple reiterations before i get it–thanks=)

[Ed. Under the guidelines, the Pres and VP are exempt from the regulations – except that the agency heads can deny anyone access to classified info if national security cannot be maintained by invoking the regulations. A determination by an agency head in this regard is – by the very letter of Executive Order 12968 – CONCLUSIVE. So the President can’t do anything about it. Even if the agency heads decide to stare at the emperor’s new clothes by feeding him classfied info, at least they will have culpability if anything treasonous should occur.]
5.
Kal Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
– Lord John Acton

“There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.”
– Niels Bohr

“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”
– Jean de la Bruyere

“The great seal of truth is simplicity.” – Herman Boerhaave

“Think like a man of action and act like a man of thought” – Sallust

“The object of the superior man is truth.” – Confucius

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” – Lao Tzu

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole Electoral System.” – Cicero

“Nothing is so strongly fortified that it cannot be taken by money.”
– Cicero
6.
Kathy Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM

This isn’t exactly on topic, but speaks to what Leo and so many bloggers here have said over and over again about the duty and privilege of every American to fight for our freedom and liberty (because, except for God, we are all we got and cannot depend on the pervasive corrupt Federal government!) here below is a powerful video to watch. Even though this video was initially produced for the April 09 Tea Party, we got another one coming up on Sep 10-12 in Washington, DC. and I’m going, banners, flags, and signs and will march, protest, sing, shout, whatever’ll be going on. I refuse to sit on the sidelines and let someone else do my job!

If the video doesn’t stir something up deep inside, you may have lost what it means to be an American. Enjoy!


7.
Clark Hamblin Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Leo,
I see you just can’t get up from this virtual table of chess that we play with these , so called legislators. Laws must be lawful to exist within the context of the Constitution, or maybe there really is no constitution and therefore no law of the people of the United States, just some other governing body?
The clock has been struck, your move!
I , and God love you Leo.

[Ed. There is no Constitution, Clark. That’s the reality of the situation. Nobody is going to step up. I feel it. This country will not exist as a sovereign nation in ten years time. ]
8.
Kal Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

@ Kathy – Great video – Thanks!

@ Leo – Have you seen these articles – any comments?

P.S.

Your name is mentioned in the 1st article.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7087

http://usjf.net/archives/1330#more-1330

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/federal-grand-jury-petition-filed-breaking-news-august-20-2009-chalice-radio-attorney-stephen-pidgeon-us-district-court-in-washington-dc/
9.
JP-research Says:
August 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Kathy: could not see any picture, just heard rousing music – please make the link work (I used two different browsers) thanks!
(please don’t post this comment if it’s already been fixed)
10.
Chris Says:
August 20, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Why is the President exempted from this Executive Order and statute? Because the President is the superior to whom the agency head report. As is shown by the fact that (1) these agency heads serve at the pleasure of the President, who can fire them for any reason or no reason at all; and (2) the President issues the Executive Orders constraining agency heads, and can change those orders for any reason or no reason at all.

Why does the President have so much more power than the agency heads? Because the agency heads are unelected officials, with no popular mandate. By contrast, the President is an elected official, with a popular mandate, chosen by virtue of a largely democratic process. Because we live in a democracy or democratic republic, our Constitution generally gives greater power to elected as compared to unelected officials.

To assume against that background that the agency heads may lawfully deny national security information to the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, makes no sense at all. Any interpretation of statute or executive order that reaches that conclusion is plainly wrong and plainly unconstitutional.

Pragmatically, this issue will never arise. Any agency head who purported to obstruct the President from receiving national security information and performing his duties as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would soon find him/herself without a job. Any agency head with half a brain would be aware of that and would not obstruct the President in his/her duties.

[Ed. The statute is clear, nothing in the EO or the statute is allowed to limit the “power” of the agency head and the agency head’s decision is conclusive. If an agency head denies the President access and is then fired, let the chips fall where they may. Some Government workers actually put their country ahead of their own personal career. It’s not a concept you would understand. But we’ll forgive you for that.]

(I added some of the interesting comments that were on Leo’s site that is now deleted but was still in google cache.)

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

This was saved from google cache. Some of the links don’t work. I believe it is important to preserve some of Leo’s great work for future reference and study.

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

[UPDATED: As of 9:59 PM Oct 09. 2009 Leo C. Donofrio does not endorse anything written by Mr. Charlton or his blog. Full explantion here.]

John Charlton of The Post and Email blog has an important follow up report pertaining to the TerriK Investigation out today:
Is Fukino’s office in open rout?

September 30, 2009 by John Charlton
DOH DIRECTOR’S OFFICE SHAKEN UP BY CITIZEN’S HUNCH THAT OBAMA HAS ALTERED HIS ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS

by John Charlton

(Sept. 30, 2009) — Recent public revelations by Attorney Leo Donofrio, that the office of Dr. Chiyome L. Fukino, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, has a policy of obstructing and misdirecting citizens’ requests for information, in violation of Hawaiian Statutes, seems to have led to confusion and rout in the office of the director.

Attorney Donofrio has detailed the requests of TerryK in July, and her subsequent requests in September (part 1 & 2). The Post & Email has also reported the request made last week by another citizen for index data & redacted records, which was also analysed by Attorney Donofrio.

An analysis of the responses received from Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director at the Department of Health, indicates there is panic in the director’s office.

First, there are notable inconsistencies of response, ranging from misdirecting citizens who make requests, to outright denials that the laws allow what they allow; to interpretations of departmental policies as being more binding tha[n] Hawaii Statutes.

Second, when the second citizen fired back a letter of complaint, in response to the denial by Janice Okubo, it appears that two of the officials in the Director’s Office who received it — Katherine P. Kealoha and Noemi Pendleton — conveniently fled the office, setting their email programs to “auto reply”, with messages that they would be out of the office for some days. Unwittingly, however, these auto-responders have confirmed that the correspondence was received by Janice Okubo; who as of this report, has continued to refuse to reply to the citizen’s legitimate request…

(click here to continue reading full report….)

I left the following comment:

naturalborncitizen Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Great Job on this. You should also know that the UIPA and case law is very clear that the response given to your reader on that form is improper…

§2-71-14 (c)(3)

(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/rules.html#27114

But read the UIPA at….

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html#92F11

Ҥ92F-11

(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”

You see that, if the information is readily retrievable then they can’t rely on that provision. This was also discussed in the Hawaii Supreme Court case

STATE OF HAWAI’I ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO) v. SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS-UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I CHAPTER

83 Haw. 378; 927 P.2d 386; 1996 Haw. LEXIS 156; 154 L.R.R.M. 2373

“In a related argument, the City, relying on HRS § 92F-11(c), asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by ordering the City to create a roster of disciplined employees. The City’s argument is patently meritless. HRS § 92F-11(c) provides that “unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.” The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment, as modified by its June 16, 1994 order, [***51] states that “the HPD may either produce a summary of the information requested or produce all documents pertaining to the subject matter, using whichever method of disclosure the HPD deems more expedient.” (Emphases added.) Clearly, the City was not ordered to create a “roster.” Accordingly, we discern no error. ”

They used this same tactic against TerriK, but on that form they were so very devious by checking two boxes. They checked the denial box for her entire list of requests…and that would mean they had the documents but are not allowing access. And they also checked the box for the list/summary thing. That response is not a denial of access, it’s a denial that they have the means to retrieve the records requested.

Nice report. This isn’t right. I have UIPA requests pending as well. Will publish those soon.

(Leo what happened to your UIPA requests. Did you let anyone know the outcome. You have informed us and encouraged us to be pro active and work to reveal the fraud obama. Yet you have deleted your good work and left us all out to dry. Why?)

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Saved from google cache. Leo has deleted this good work from his blog but I have preserved it for study. It is very interesting and should be kept in the public eye. Some links don’t work. Any link to leo’s site don’t.

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

INTRODUCTION

The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution. The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.

BACKGROUND

The state of Hawaii enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) as a means by which the public may have free and open access to all information maintained by the Government. While some information is obviously restricted to protect the privacy of individuals, the intent of the statute is clear; to help the public access government held information.

Page 9 of the UIPA Manual states:

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.

Unfortunately, officials at the Hawaii Department of Health (DoH) have been using the statute for the opposite purpose it was intended. This investigation will bear witness to blatant offensive abuses of the law which have clearly frustrated the purpose and scope of the statute, a statute intended to do just the opposite.

The UIPA Manual states in its introduction:

Democracy exists only when government functions in the open and protects the rights of its citizens to participate in that government. In 1988, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (the “UIPA”) to preserve and ensure that open government and public participation.

At the same time, it created the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) to implement the UIPA and to serve as a resource for both the public and government agencies in interpreting and applying its provisions. The Legislature recognized, however, that the “proper functioning of any public records law is very much dependent upon the attitude of those who implement the law[,]” requiring “strong and active agency implementation of the records laws.” The Legislature thus urged “all agencies to accept this new law as a challenge and a mandate to ensure public access to the public’s government.”

Tactics used by Department of Health Director Fukino and Communications Director Okubo have frustrated the true intent of the UIPA. TerriK and myself will request that the Director of the Office of Information Practices – an office created to enforce the UIPA – institute disciplinary proceedings against Fukino and Okubo based upon their wrongful conduct concerning multiple UIPA requests made by TerriK.

Whether intentional fraud was involved is an issue that must be looked into by law enforcement.

GENESIS OF THE TerriK INVESTIGATION

DoH Director Fukino issued the following statement in a press release dated October 31, 2008:

…I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

Eight months later, in a press release dated July 27, 2009, Director Fukino further stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

TerriK took immediate notice that the second statement mentioned “original vital records” (plural), whereas the first statement only referred to a single record; an “original birth certificate”. TerriK deduced that any definition of natural born citizen must refer to parentage and/or place of birth, both of which should have been contained in the original birth certificate.

Since Director Fukino viewed “vital records” in making her second public statement, TerriK then assumed that President Obama’s original birth certificate had been amended and/or corrected – in that had it not been so changed, only the original birth certificate (singular) would have required access by Fukino rather than “vital records” (plural).

TerriK’s research into the UIPA also revealed that if Obama’s records had been amended, Obama was required by the UIPA statute to make preliminary UIPA requests himself – to see his own records and also to amend or correct them.

UIPA requests are themselves government records maintained according to statute just as birth and other vital records are maintained.

TerriK, after assuming those UIPA requests had been made, then made a UIPA request herself requesting all information pertaining to – not just the actual amendments, if any – but also to the UIPA requests required to see records and amend them.

TerriK originally believed that the actual vital birth records were completely protected under Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. But it wasn’t clear to her that UIPA requests for records, requests to amend and/or correct vital records, and fees paid thereto were also protected under the statutes.

Regardless, she simply requested those UIPA records as if they did exist and hoped for the best.

MISDIRECTED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OFFICIALS

While TerriK did receive some accurate guidance from staff attorneys in the OIP (which will be discussed in following reports), the responses from Directors Fukino and Akubo in the DoH were misleading and deceptive. They failed to provide clear statutory guidance where such guidance was obviously proper.

The following statement was made by Director Fukino in an email to TerriK on August 6, 2009:

From: “Fukino, Chiyome L.”

Date: August 6, 2009 3:54:02 PM EDT

To: [MissTickly, real name and email redacted] oip@hawaii.gov

Subject: RE: Appeal for urgency

Dear [TerriK (real name redacted)],

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338 at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/…

Sincerely,
Chiyome L. Fukino, MD
Director
Hawaii State Department of Health

The statute cited – HRS 338 – operates – according to Fukino’s statement above – to prevent the disclosure of “any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large. Unfortunately, that is a blatantly false statement. In fact, it appears to be intentionally fraudulent having coming from an official who certainly knows it’s false.

The very same statute – at 338-18(d) – provides:

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

Had TerriK been made aware of this subsection, she could have specifically applied it to Fukino’s July 27, 2009 press release and requested the “index data” pertaining to all “vital records” kept by the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

As I write this, despite the fact that HRS 338-18(d) makes such index data available with no exceptions, the state of Hawaii Department of Health has never released to TerriK or, to my knowledge, anyone else, index data concerning vital records of President Obama other than the existence of an original birth certificate.

The public is entitled, with no exception provided by law, to examine all index data referred to in HRS 338-18(d) pertaining to each and every vital record on file in the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

Due to her lingering intuition, TerriK kept the investigation going, but it wasn’t until this week that she learned about and understood the importance of HRS 338-18(d). She was completely baffled when I brought it to her attention. Throughout her voluminous correspondence with the DoH and OIP, subsection (d) had never been mentioned to her.

The general public are not skilled in complex statutory interpretation. Nor are they generally skilled in legal and document research. The UIPA was created to assist the public in these difficult areas. Moreover, according to the UIPA Manual, a bias exists for public disclosure of information. Yet, Director Fukino not only failed to inform TerriK about the mandated availability of index data listed in 338-18(d), Fukino insisted that “State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large.

But “index data” is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

Because of the ongoing misdirection, you might believe an exception to 338-18(d) exists. You would be wrong.

The DoH Communications Director, Janice Okubo, repeated the misdirection in an email sent to TerriK on September 09, 2009:

RE: Please add to my UIPA request
From: Okubo, Janice S. (janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov)
Sent: Thu 9/03/09 3:48 PM
To: Terri K (terri1958@hotmail.com)
Aloha Terri K,

I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.

Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444
email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

This example of misdirection is even more egregious in that it specifically cites 338-18 while failing to acknowledge subsection (d) of the very same statute. The misdirection is found where Akubo states, “Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it”.

Again, “index data” most certainly is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

The Department of Health has – through a continuing pattern of misdirection – kept the public in the dark regarding the identification of vital statistics records other than Obama’s original birth certificate by failing to acknowledge the open availability of “index data” to the public at large via 338-18(d).

I will detail another example of misdirection below, but first I must draw your attention to Office of Information Practices Opinion Letter No. 90-07. (Official citation is OIP Op. Ltr.No. 90-7.) (The prior link goes to the full text of 90-07 while the general page for all OIP opinion letters is here.) This letter will astound anyone familiar with the public statements of DoH Directors Fukino and Okubo.

The direct question presented to the OIP – and answered by Opinion Letter 90-07 was:

“Whether, under the UIPA, the DOE may disclose an individual’s birthdate and social security number contained in a government record to NASDTEC.”

While they denied NASDTEC access to the information requested on other grounds, the OIP included these conclusions concerning HRS 338-18(d) in OIP Opinion Letter 90-07:

We, however, recognize that an individual’s birthdate, social security number, or both are typically found in some government records required by law to be public, including index data on vital statistics, section 338-18(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes; voter registration affidavits, section 11-15, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and a general county register of registered voters, section 11-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Where a state or federal law expressly authorizes a government record to be disclosed, disclosure will be required by the UIPA notwithstanding an applicable exception. Haw. Rev. Stat.  92F-12 (b)(2) (Supp. 1989). If an individual’s social security number or birthdate is contained in a government record required to be public, this information is accordingly made public as part of that public government record.

Furthermore, an individual’s social security number or birthdate may be contained in the government records listed in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which are expressly made public under the UIPA. For these particular records, the Legislature has essentially performed a “balancing” of competing privacy and public interests and has deemed that the public interest in disclosure is greater. The records listed in subsection 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, are records “which the Legislature declares, as a matter of public policy, shall be disclosed. As to these records, the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.” S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988).

I do not believe that index data available to the public at large via 338-18(d) still contains date of birth and social security number. But the available index data still contains information relevant to TerriK’s UIPA requests. Please read the last paragraph above again now. Specifically, the last line demands repeating, “the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.”

This will be a very important Opinion Letter as it demands that all records required by statute to be made available in 92F-12 under the UIPA are not subject to privacy exceptions. In my introductory report concerning the TerriK investigation, I asked you to take note of the UIPA at 92F-12(15), which lists the following as information which must be made public:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

We will return to this provision when we discuss TerriK’s UIPA requests concerning the dual public statements made by Director Fukino on July 27, 2009; that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. All information collected and maintained for purposes of making both of those statements must be released according to 92F-12(15). And by applying Opinion Letter 90-07 to that information, we can be sure that no exceptions exist which can deny public disclosure of the same.

OIP OPINION LETTER 07-07.

The following letter shall come as a big surprise to TerriK and the entire eligibility movement as it appears to compel the release of President Obama’s original birth certificate (or whatever vital records Director Fukino examined for the purpose of making the public statement that he was born in Hawaii) in redacted form.

In OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 (written on April 18, 2007 by current OIP staff attorney Cathy Takase, one of the officials who responded to TerriK in writing) (official citation is OIP Op. Ltr. No. 07-07), it was stated – in relation to index data made available to the public by DoH via 338-18(d) – that an individual has no privacy interest in information that the Department of Health has already made available to the public. Here is the relevant text:

“OIP further notes that, pursuant to statute, DOH itself discloses certain information in the vital records it maintains, and, therefore, individuals would not have a significant privacy interest in that information. Specifically, the statute provides that ‘[i]ndex data consisting of name and sex of registrant, type of vital event and other such information as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.’ Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18 (Supp. 2006). According to its director, DOH creates a daily list of the vital statistics records it receives and the public may inspect. The daily list consists of the name and sex of the registrant and the type of vital event.

Accordingly, OIP believes that DLNR should, upon request, disclose a copy of an individual’s vital record maintained by DLNR, but may redact out all information except…information of the type discussed by DOH.”

If we analyze OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 – in light of the index data available to the public and maintained by the DoH – as well as Director Fukino’s July 27, 2009 public announcement – offered in an official DoH press release, on DoH letterhead – that she had seen the vital records of President Obama and they prove he was born in Hawaii, then the public should be entitled to see – in redacted form – whatever vital records were used to expose his birth in Hawaii, as well as (if not the same document) original vital records – again in redacted form – which contain the viewable index data.

It’s quite amazing, but OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 clearly indicates that once information contained in a vital record is exposed, the person no longer has a privacy interest in the exposed information. And therefore, the relevant original vital records should be made public in redacted form when disclosure of the relevant information is mandatory according to statute – in this case more than one, specifically the UIPA at 92F-12(15) and Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d).

Needless to say, TerriK was never directed to OIP Opinion Letter 07-07, OIP Opinion Letter 90-07, the UIPA at 92F-12(15) or Haw. Rev. Sta. 338-18(d). So much for the opening statement in the UIPA manual regarding the proper implementation of the statute depending on the “attitude” of state officials to embody the spirit in which the law was written; to “deliver on its ‘inherent promise’ to ensure implementation: educating the public of its rights and … assisting the public in gaining access to records…”

CONCLUSIONS

The actions of Director Fukino and Communications Director Okubo couldn’t be more blatantly opposed to the Hawaii legislature’s intention of “open government and public participation”. Certainly, since these officials are familiar with these statutes, it appears some of their false statements were intentional. Whether a pattern of fraud existed for the purpose of confounding genuine public investigations into government should be the subject of both disciplinary and criminal investigations.

“Part 1″ of this report now concludes with another example of misdirection given to TerriK by DoH Director Fukino.

In her email to TerriK dated August 6, 2009 (see above), Fukino makes reference to the specific practice of record “verification” (enacted by the Hawaii legislature in 2001). Verification is a mechanism which allows a person to have their vital records “verified” by Hawaii officials in lieu of obtaining a certified copy of those records. General access to the content of an official “verification” is not available to the general public. The same rules that govern access to vital records are applied.

So, if an ordinary member of the public were to be directed by an official to that part of the statute which defines a “verification” as a protected vital record, and that ordinary citizen was also not aware of HRS 338-18(d), then they might mistakenly assume that the restrictions enacted to access an official statutory “verification” might also apply to a UIPA request to simply confirm the existence of basic information pertaining to vital records, ie name of registrant and type of vital event.

Therefore, such a person might be led to believe such basic data is not made available to the public…when in fact it must be disclosed under 338-18(d). If so guided by a government official, that person might be persuaded to give up their research.

Knowing that TerriK had made numerous UIPA requests simply to inquire whether certain records even existed, please review Director Fukino’s August 6, 2009 e mail to TerriK once again:

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338…

First, as we’ve already discussed, the statement wrongly informed TerriK that “any information about a Hawaii vital record” must be denied to her. Second, rather than directing TerriK to that portion of the statute which would have helped her obtain some of the information she had properly and fairly requested – 338-18(d), Fukino’s statement misdirects TerriK to that part of the statute concerned with “verification” – which was no help to her as “verifications” are not available to the general public.

All of the above is evidence of an egregious pattern of misdirection. I will provide more examples of this pattern in follow up reports.

Report prepared by Leo C. Donofrio, Attorney. Published on September 24, 2009.

Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.

Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.

There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute. Since the statute will most likely be invoked by private citizens in the near future, I will discuss some of the confusion floating about. Recently, Mario Apuzzo Esq. added to the confusion with a blog post that contains multiple misconceptions regarding the federal quo warranto statute and applicable case law.

I know Mr. Apuzzo is an honorable attorney and an intelligent man. I do not want my readers to get the impression that I am advocating otherwise. Regardless, it is necessary for me to strongly counter the impression his recent report has given the public.

I will ask that readers please bone up on the exhaustive work I published back in March which Mr. Apuzzo failed to acknowledge in his post. My previous three part series can be found at the following links:

Quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/

part-2-the-federal-quo-warranto-statute-is-the-only-constitutional-means-of-removing-a-sitting-president-other-than-impeachment/

quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-3-standing-trial-by-jury-history-of-statute-separation-of-powers-cont/

I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.

Mr. Apuzzo stated on November 9th, 2009:

Before we begin, we must understand that a quo warranto action is a direct attack on an office holder, questioning his qualifications to hold an office and therefore his warrant and authority to occupy that office. It does not challenge any action taken by that person while having been in office. This type of action is to be distinguished from one where the plaintiff brings an indirect attack (collateral attack) against that office holder, arguing that some action taken by him or her is invalid because he or she is not qualified to hold the office from which the action is taken… Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C.Cir.1984). As we shall see below, this distinction is important, for it can be argued that direct attacks must satisfy the requirements of a quo warranto action while indirect attacks must satisfy the requirements of the de facto officer doctrine. Mr. Donofrio does not explain which one of these approaches he proposes to take against Obama.

I have discussed the difference between collateral attacks and direct attacks in quo warranto on multiple occasions going all the way back to March 2009 when I introduced my readers to the important DC Court of Appeals case – Andrade v. Lauer:

– Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.

In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.

The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.

The false implication from Mr. Apuzzo’s recent article is that I haven’t considered the difference between direct and collateral attacks. I certainly have as my prior reports predate his by eight months. Apuzzo goes on to say:

Since Mr. Donofrio is proposing a quo warranto action, he must be planning a direct attack against Obama. Mr. Donofrio fails to recognize the many problems that exist with the quo warranto procedure that he advocates.

I have been on the record numerous times to explain the difficulties in proving one is an “interested person” under the statute. The difficulty is covered in great detail in my previous three part series. Apuzzo fails to acknowledge this work and then berates me as if the work does not exist.

But the most serious deficiency in Mr. Apuzzo’s work concerns his failure to properly quote the US Supreme Court wherein he states:

Under the standard for being an “interested person” as pronounced by Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself…” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that office. Indeed, Newman requires that the plaintiff be “actually and personally interested” in the office and that there be another person against whom the action is brought who has unlawfully occupied the office in question. In other words, the plaintiff must himself make a claim to the office in order to qualify to bring the action.

Mr. Apuzzo has ignored the most important part of the holding in the controlling US Supreme Court case which has construed the quo warranto statute – Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). His reporting here is blatantly mistaken. In the Newman case, the SCOTUS discussed the issue concerning who may be an “interested person” under the statute and they left a huge barn door open on this point. Please refresh your memories on this most important SCOTUS precedent:

For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.

It is that final line issued by the SCOTUS which provides the best possible access to the quo warranto statute and the DC District Court for review of Obama’s eligibility. As readers of this blog are fully aware, I have said over and again that somebody like former Inspector General Walpin – fired from his civil service position by Obama – would have a fair chance at qualifying as an “interested person” to make a direct attack via quo warranto upon Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

Back in March I stated:

SCOTUS held that interested persons would include persons ousted from the office they are challenging. But they left the door open with that last line, “…and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.”

Mr. Apuzzo fails to mention this part of the holding in Newman, and he fails to mention my previous discussion thereof. Furthermore, he goes on to say:

Are there any available plaintiffs at this time who fill this bill or will there be any in the future who will do so? I know that Mr. Donofrio is now looking for a plaintiff to retain him to bring a quo warranto action in the DC District Court. But has he advised the public that any would-be plaintiff has to have an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself and that he be actually and personally interested in the office?

The record is quite clear. I have advised the public regarding the Newman case and the quo warranto statute since March. And I have done so comprehensively whereas Mr. Apuzzo has not. There is no excuse for Apuzzo’s ignorance of this important aspect of the Newman holding. It greatly expands the definition of “interested person”.

Furthermore, I am not looking for plaintiffs. But plaintiffs have certainly come looking for me. I have not directly solicited anyone. I simply stated on my blog that I was open to speaking to persons who might fit into the statute’s requirements as defined by SCOTUS.

I have turned most who contacted me down because they did not meet the requirements discussed by the SCOTUS in Newman. I’ve had long conversations with active military persons. I counseled them not to bring quo warranto actions in the DC District Court since the holding in Newman provides no wiggle room for military plaintiffs. Our brave soldiers are certainly interested in their Commander being eligible, but the holding in Newman is rather strict. The court only listed two possible groups of eligible candidates for 3503 access to a direct attack via quo warranto – those who seek the office and others who might have claims under “the civil service laws”. Since SCOTUS went out of their way to limit this holding to these two possible sets of persons, the chances of military persons gaining access under the statute is remote. Not impossible but certainly remote.

Until the statute is tried by persons effected by the civil service laws, I do not believe the military should be on the front line for this issue. And I explained this back in March as well, stating:

I don’t believe the military are party to the civil service laws, so I don’t see them as being the plaintiffs with the best possible standing.

Apuzzo then goes on to argue that the quo warranto statute can’t remove a sitting President, stating:

Second, if the DC statute were to be read as Mr. Donofrio does so as to be used as a tool to oust from office a sitting putative President, then I doubt such an application of that statute would be constitutional. It is highly doubtful that Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the Executive, has the constitutional power to pass a statute which would allow a federal district court to alone directly remove a sitting President.

I have addressed the constitutional issues in great detail in my prior reports. But this is exactly the argument recently made by the Department of Justice before Judge Carter in Barnett v. Obama. The DOJ argued that the quo warranto statute could not be used to remove a sitting President. But Judge Carter did not adopt the DOJ argument in his holding in Barnett v. Obama. Instead, Judge Carter stated on page 25 of that decision:

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503.

It’s very encouraging that faced with the chance to affirm the DOJ position, Judge Carter refrained form doing so. Instead, he quotes the clear language of the statute which applies to all United States offices. As Mr. Apuzzo is well aware, when the language of a statute is clear, the courts have consistently refused to construe the statute otherwise. Accordingly, Judge Carter was careful to state that “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

Another mistake made by Apuzzo is his reliance upon Wilder v. Brace where he states that “a federal court with diversity jurisdiction can hear quo warranto action“. Unfortunately, Apuzzo fails to acknowledge that the holding in Wilder only extends to a state quo warranto action, not a federal action. This was discussed in Tuscon v. US West as follows:

Wilder v. Brace, 218 F. Supp. 863-65 (D. Me. 1963) (holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction can hear a state quo warranto action).

A state quo warranto action is a very different beast than a quo warranto to remove a US national office holder. Most of the States have their own quo warranto statutes effecting state officers. The holding in Wilder simply clarifies that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction applying state law may apply state quo warranto law. This is a completely different situation than a federal quo warranto action to remove a US national office holder.

As I have pointed out in my previous reports (please review links form above), the federal courts have consistently refused to entertain federal quo warranto actions against US national office holders due to the very specific wording of the quo warranto statute. As stated above, Judge Carter recently reaffirmed this to be the law.

In conclusion, I must reiterate that Mr. Apuzzo fails to quote the highest court in the land properly and in doing so he misses the forest for the trees. Once again, SCOTUS stated in the Newman holding:

“…there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.”

This one line is the single most important precedent concerning the issue of who may be an “interested person” under 16-3503 of the quo warranto statute. Why Mr. Apuzzo fails to mention it is a mystery to me. I have been educating the public thereto since March ‘09. I am proud of my work and I stand by it.

Leo C. Donofrio

(Leo many Americans are and were also proud of your work. I am pleased to preserve your good work because it is worthy of study by all freedom loving Americans)

President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Copied from google cache. Links don’t work. This is from leo’s work that he has deleted but still is in google cache.

President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.

Obama and Odinga

The 2004 article from Kenya’s oldest newspaper – The Standard – featured the headline which stated :

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

And the blogosphere went into hyper overdrive. The first line of defense was that it was a fraud, and the second line of defense was to simply ignore the story. As of today – according to the Google news search engine – not one main stream newspaper is reporting this story other than blogger Don Surber at The Daily Mail in the UK in Charleston, West Virginia. And he has apparently debunked the first line of defense, stating:

I checked.

Apparently that is a true image from the June 24, 2004, Standard, which is Kenya’s oldest newspaper.

Then Surber goes on to argue that just because the report appeared in 2004, that doesn’t mean it’s true. However, what Surber and most of the blogosphere have failed to comprehend is that President Obama has admitted the headline is true.

It is undisputed that Obama was Kenyan-born by the blood of his father. That led to his Kenyan citizenship having been automatically granted in 1963 by the Kenya Independence Act.

JUS SANGUINIS

The legal concept by which it is undisputed that President Obama was “Kenyan-born” is “jus sanguinis“, which means “right of blood”.

Furthermore, President Obama admitted that, under the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of his birth – he was a British citizen. It has also been accurately reported by Factcheck.org that President Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963. (However, a separate key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa. Please also note their second mea culpa to this blog.)

JUS SOLI

Unfortunately, the undisputed legal fact of Obama’s jus sanguinis foreign birth has been supplanted by the sensational conspiracy theory relating to the place of his birth. The headline from the 2004 Kenyan news report does not indicate whether “Kenyan-born” relates to Obama’s Kenyan bloodline or – in the alternative – to his place of birth. Place of birth citizenship is conferred by a legal concept known as “jus soli“, meaning law of the soil.

Please don’t miss the forest for the trees. President Obama admits to having been a British citizen at birth by law and a son of Kenyan blood which led to automatic Kenyan citizenship in 1963. This alone should disqualify him from POTUS eligibility – regardless of where he was born – since he was a dual citizen at birth and at least until 1984.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.

This is an attribute only available at birth.

Whether a person (who admits having been) born subject to the laws of a foreign power can become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a genuine and necessary question of law, not a conspiracy theory.

US v. WONG KIM ARK

The leading citizenship case issued by the US Supreme Court – US v. Wong Kim Ark – stated the following:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

Both hypothetical children discussed in the passage above are US citizens and both hold equal rights. But the majority opinion makes it quite clear that only one child is “natural born” – the child of the citizen. The court compared the native born child of an alien to the “natural born” child of a citizen, and in doing so made clear that – while both are citizens – the circumstances of their US citizenship are not the same.

One child’s citizenship is “natural born” and the other child’s citizenship required the 14th amendment. And therefore, it’s very important to note that the majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that the definition of “natural born citizen” is not found in the Constitution. If 14th amendment citizenship defined the meaning of “natural born citizen”, then the Court could not have made that statement.

POTUS REQUIREMENTS ARE NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES.

The Constitutional requirements to be POTUS are not rights, they are national security measures. Even natural born citizens who fail to meet the other requirements cannot be President. For example, a 33-year-old natural born citizen cannot be President. But 35-year-old men have no more rights than 33-year-old men. Understand? Requirements are not rights.

If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Leo Donofrio Has Punted Quo Warranto

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Leo Donofrio Has Punted Quo Warranto

I have preserved much of Leo’s excellent work on this blog.  I know many hundreds of Americans want to refer to Leo’s past comments about Quo Warranto and his efforts to get information from the State of Hawaii.  Although Leo has deleted his blog it still was in the google cache. Information on most of this blog is from the google cache of past posts by Leo. This post “Leo has punted quo warranto” is my thoughts about Leo.  I am thankful he took the time and effort to educate us, the public,  pro bono on how to expose the fraud obama.

I feel abandoned by Leo because he saw fit to just delete his blog and tell us all of a sudden he didn’t have the time to pursue the effort of quo warranto as he had done before.  It makes me wonder if someone put pressure on Leo to “bow out” so to speak.  Leo inspired me and others I’m sure to seek a remedy for the removal of the fraud obama from office through quo warranto and exposing the hidden documents of obama in Hawaii and elsewhere.  I have tried to preserve some of Leo’s great work for us all to study and apply. That is the purpose of this blog NB CITIZENS. Good luck Leo.  I hope you get back in the game soon because we know you are the “game changer”.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Leo Punts

Leo Punts

Leo Donofrio is ‘PUNTING” the ‘BALL’ and says quote, “The blog is taking too much of my time and energy.” If this is true Leo has wasted my time as others. I have followed Leo on his blog and was inspired by him to believe obama could be exposed as a FRAUD through Quo Qarranto. Leo explained the process and documented how it could be done. Now Leo has removed all his documented information and left us all ‘out to dry’. One day Leo exclaims he will not give up and the next he says he does not have enough time all of a sudden. I have documented some of Leo’s outstanding work about Quo Warranto. I thought it was worthy of documenting and trying to disseminate. I can’t believe Leo is giving up. He did this once before and later starting informing us again. Leo don’t give up and don’t let us down!
……………………………………………………………………………….

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.

The information Leo posted on Oct 8, 2009 explains how Americans can expose obama as a FRAUD. This post is important to all who want to know how to expose obama as an imposter. Leo is correct I believe. This will work. I can’t understand why Leo did not bring this action in the DC Court or represent someone who was directly injured by obama such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin.

Leo has deleted this information from his blog but it is still cached by google.
Quo Warranto For Interested Persons
……………………………………………………………………………….

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.

But they’ve never even tried.

Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.

Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.

Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.

If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.

I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.

Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?

Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.

Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
……………………………………………………………………………..

Leo I read this over a few times. I agree. Why have you deserted America and punted? Story Reports
……………………………………………………………………………..

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Leo has deleted this information but I have preserved it for your information and mine.

Leo is the citizen lawyer that has inspired me and others to believe the system can still work if applied correctly. Leo has prsented enough information for any US citizen or other interested person to explore the option of using Quo Warranto to expose the FRAUD obama. I wish I knew if any other lawyer or interested party has attempted to use Quo Warranto to expose the IMPOSTER obama. I believe this is possible. Of course I don’t know how the DC Court would respond.

I appeal again to Leo Donofrio to file a Quo Warranto in Dc Court before giving up on America and all those who believe in the possiblity of removing obama from office because of Quo Warranto.Story Reports

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Actions Against Officers Of The United States QUO WARRANTO Chaper 35 Sub Chapter I

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER II
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Actions Against Officers Or Corporations Of The District Of Columbia

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS

Procedures And Judgments

………………………………………………………………………………

Constitution.org Quo Warranto

§ 4.19 STANDING — PRIVATE PERSONS SUING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES PERMITTING WITH LEAVE OF COURT

It is now fairly common for states by statute or court rule to allow private individuals, under certain circumstances at least, to bring actions in quo warranto (or its modern equivalent) with leave granted by court.’

Frequently by statute or rule the individual seeking leave must be an “interested person.”

Other courts have often said that “a person who has no greater interest than the public generally cannot maintain an action….”4 Generally claimants to the public office involved have been accepted as “interested persons,”5 and there has been expressed at times the unfortunate notion that only such claimants are “specially interested.”6

Statutes authorizing private persons to bring quo warranto in their own names customarily require them to post security for costs.17

§ 4.21 STANDING – PRIVATE PERSONS BRINGING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING SAME AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REFUSED TO BRING ACTION

Statutes and rules of court in a number of jurisdictions permit private individuals to bring quo warranto, either in their own name or in the name of the state, after they have requested the attorney general to commence such action and he has refused.l

Notwithstanding the unqualified language of the statutes, e.g. “a private person,” “any citizen,” “any elector”, courts operating under these statutes have been inclined to rule that persons generally cannot bring quo warranto under these statutes, but that the action can be brought only by individuals with special interests.2

The appellate courts add: “The private interest alleged must be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the action sought to be challenged in the quo warranto proceeding. The damage to that private interest must be then occurring or certain to occur; the petitioner cannot rely on an expected damage to his private interest.” Significantly, the court adds that “the private interest of one citizen may be an interest shared by other members of the community for purposes of establishing quo warranto standing.”6

§ 4.26 THE INITIAL PLEADING OF THE APPLICANT – THE COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INFORMATION

Generally, as in other civil actions, the initial pleading of an applicant for quo warranto or its statutory equivalent is denominated a complaint.1 Occasionally it is referred to as a petition,2 or an information.3

When the attorney general brings the action in quo warranto in vindication of a public right, it has customarily only been necessary that he allege in general terms that the defendant is unlawfully usurping a public office or franchise, there being no need to set forth the particular facts.4 Even when a private individual is bringing this kind of action to vindicate public rights, it has not ordinarily been necessary for him to do more than allege the defendant was usurping the public office or franchise without lawful authority.5 The rule permitting such broad pleading has often been criticized, and modern statutes have been drawn so as to require greater specificity.6

When an individual is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto, his pleading must positively, with certainty and specificity set forth the facts on which he relies.7 They must be set forth clearly and without ambiguity,8 sufficient to indicate the unlawful nature of the defendant’s actions.9 Legal conclusions are not sufficient.10 In some states the complaint must allege that the individual seeking relief has a private interest in the matter and that the action sought to be challenged by quo warranto has harmed that interest.11 When an individual making application for quo warranto is able, as under many statutes, to assert his own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendant, the plaintiff must set forth facts indicating his own right to the office.12

(Record Master)
Who can allege their interests were harmed? Who has a private interest? Who can assert their own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendent? Who can set forth the facts and is considered a “real party” in interest in bringing action for quo warranto?

SARAH PALIN
She is an individual that is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto.

Sara Palin could file a complaint/petition via the federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”

Leo D.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C. Quo Warranto Claims (Judge Carter Ruling)

Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.

Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Judge Cater Ruling Case No SACV 09-0082 DOC-AN 10/29/2009

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin could today bring obama to his knees if she would petition the DC District Court by using the Quo Warranto Federal Law In Washington DC.

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.

Sarah, Geral why have you not done this? I have not heard you speak of any challenge to Obama.

America is waiting for you to take action. America needs you to seek to remove obama because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. You have standing with the DC District Court through Quo Warranto.

Please expose obama before it is too late!!

Quo Warranto Information At Constitution.org

………………………………………………………………………………
Leo ‘our quaterback’ was moving the ‘ball’ down the field of Quo Warranto with this information below. It is the template or outline for a “game changer”. Our ‘quarter back’ has now punted for ‘less points’. I want to win Leo. I didn’t want to settle for ‘less points’. Leo has left the ‘game’ because he is injured. I think Leo is frustrated with other lawyers who have used the system incorrectly. I hope Leo is able to return to the “game” soon and take the “ball”, “Quo Warranto” to the Dc Court and win the “game”!

………………………………………………………………………………
Leo Donofrio

“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”

– There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.

– There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.

– There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.

– There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.

All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.

Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.

Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.

I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.

The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.

Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.

THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.

Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…

“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”

I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.

CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

……………………………………………………………………………..
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

I have recorded additional information Leo Donofrio has written about Quo Warranto. This information is available at the link below and I will post it again here. Leo explains Juge Carter’s ruling and documents how the door was left open to Quo Warranto. Leo you need to walk through the door you were talking about for America.

……………………………………………………………………………..

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

Leo Donofrio

Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

“The DC District Court”, has the power, “to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.

The Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

(Leo will you test it? Can you follow through with the ‘conflict’? Don’t let America down)
………………………………………………………………………………
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
………………………………………………………………………………

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

………………………………………………………………………………

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

If you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.

The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
……………………………………………………………………………..
Leo Explains Quo Warranto Radio Interview

………………………………………………………………………………

quo warranto

“By what warrant do you hold office”?

The DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.

How Congress Is Sanitizing The Natural Born Issue

Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue. Leo D.

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
What a citizen can do to EXPOSE THE FRAUD obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………

Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.

Remember:

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!) Story Reports

*****************************************************************************************
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
*****************************************************************************************

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.

*****Everybody: 16-3502*****

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

This is what I can do and any US citizen that is not an “interested person” such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin for example. These two people have injured by obama and can go directly to the DC Court.

Leo has provided the template. Leo has deleted the template from his blog. I have preserved it. Leo stated it was for our use. I urge Americans to use this procedure that Leo has said will work. I also believe it will if applied as Leo has explained. I am disappointed that leo has deleted this excellent information on his blog for us to use. Leo must have known someone would preseve it

Comments On

‘Quo Warranto for ‘Interested Persons” – Leo Donofrio; Plus Related Items: Are You ‘Interested?’ Investigating Obama

Leo Donofrio says he is to busy

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Leo’s last comments:

Emotional pleas do not sway federal courts.  Only the cold hard force of legal will does.

Patience.  Attention to detail.  Strategy.  Planning.  Honesty.  Integrity. Respect for the law.  Respect for the process.  Thorough research.  And most important – genuine injuries different than those suffered by the public at large.

By now it should be clear that federal standing and political question doctrine issues will not yield to exotic conceptual legal theories.  As predicted, the courts will not bend to anyone that precedent does not bestow judicial invitation upon.  After the electoral college certified Obama, I predicted every eligibility law suit pending against him would fail on procedural grounds unless brought via the DC District Court under the the DC quo warranto statute.

That prediction is batting 1000.

If people feel better blaming the messenger for correctly analyzing these cases, so be it.  Not knowing the legal truth doesn’t stop the legal truth from being true.

The blog is taking too much of my time and energy.  Therefore, it is going dark.  I have work to do.  My legal blogging days are over.  I may eventually publish a book on this era of my life.

Peace and love.

Leo

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

From google cache. Links don’t work. Info I preserved for all who want to know the truth.

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

Read that last line again.

“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.  This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.