Barnett Memo Mar15 - 12

1 2 3 4 5
Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner of the Ad Hoc California registered voters with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Telephone: 530-845-5186
ENDORSED
12 M R 15 P l+:07 A M LEGAL P O E S ^4 R CS
S U P E R I O R COURT O F CAILIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Case No.: 34-2012-80001048 Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott M E M O R A N D U M OF POINTS A N D AUTHORITIES FOR THE EX PARTE PAMELA BARNEIT'S PEREMPTORY WRIT V^TH ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING I N RESPONSE TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA I I , OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING Date: March 26, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 31 Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny Action Filed: January 6, 2012
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Petitioners, v. Debra Bo'wen individually and officially as The C a l i f o r n i a Secretary o f State at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor Sacramento, CA, 95814; Barack Hussein Obama I I ; OBAMA FOR A M E R I C A (CALIFORNIA) at NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. Respondents.
17 18 19 20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
That this is the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Ex Parte Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having affirmed an application on March 14, 2012 with exhibits annexed and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of a Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with Alternative Writ for an Expedited evidentiary hearing before March 29, 2012 on the merits o f t h e evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent
28
Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 1 of 22
1 2 3 4 5
Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012 by Respondents' counsel Fredric D. Woocher Esq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation is in support of an alternative writ for a expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits of the evidence proffered to date before the ballot printing deadline of March 29, 2012 that
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
sufficient also to require as a matter of fair notice and respect for the court calendar that a continuance must be granted for Petitioner's response schedule as to the California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen's Demurrer with Memorandum filed February 16, 2012 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. HakI, Esq. with return date ofApril 20, 2012, and that the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery with
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented based upon the March 1, 2012 the release by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Office of the COLD CASE POSSE of the preliminary report shown in exhibit; and further, that the Court order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writ is heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason requires an amended Petition filed
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
nunc pro tunc. Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama I I ; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, are hereby stayed from printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to be held on June 5, 2012 any of the names of the electors slates for the purported candidates for the office of POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance of
27 28
Respondents or by his / her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted. Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 2 of 22
1 2 3 4
Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State, Barack Hussein Obama I I ; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, shall appear or by his / her attorney show cause at this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, by March 26, 2012 , at 9:00 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon as counsel may be heard
why an order should not be made affecting the Electoral College requiring that each
6 7 8
declared candidate be a natural born citizen. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution
9
10 11
Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3 Article 2, Section 1 13"^ Amendment
20 6,20 14,15,20 13-16,
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
14"^ Amendment California Constitution Article 2, Section 5 Article 20 the Oath of office California Statues California Government Code 12172.5 California Elections Code 6041 California Elections Code 6901 California Elections Code 13314 California Civil Code 1104 California Civil Code 1109 California Cases Keyes v. Bowen case No. C062321. - CA Court of Appeals Robinson v. Bowen, (189 Cal.App.4^^ at p.661 Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al. No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012) citing: In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592;
21 21
21
5 6
Allen V. Leiande (1912) 164 Cal. 56. Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) Federal Cases Minor V. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) U.S. V. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) McPherson v. Blacker, 146 LLS^ 1 (1892) Bush V. Gore, 531 LLS, 98 (2000) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
9
10 11 12 13 14
21
18, 19,
19 19 20 20 20 18
Elk V Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Scott V Sanford, 19 Howard 393 Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306 ResDublIca v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. I l l
Federal Statutes:
15 16 17 18
3 U.S.C. section 15 Federal Forms: U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application for renewal
19 20 21 22 23 24
Georgia State Cases: OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS for the STATE OF GEORGIA Docket Numbers: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215136-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215137-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216218-60-MALIHI; OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1216823-60-MALIHI; Administrative trial court decision citing:
25
A n k e n v v . Governor o f State o f Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678

26 27 28
14
Memorandum of Law by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. shown as Exhibit 12
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: the February 3, 2012 Judge Malihi Decision shown as Exhibit 13 The Law o f Nations: or. Principles o f t h e law o f nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212 Congressional Globe at p. 1862 o f t h e 3 7 * Congress 2"'' ses. p. 1639 The 39"^ Congress session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 1 1 , 1866 the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883
14
19 15
15 16-18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
L IL
INTRODUCTION An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery
III.
An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports That all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives 7 7
IV.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
That Respondent Obama's 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery
\L
That Respondent Obama is suspect of not being born in the USA as a result that Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence 8 11 11 12
VI. VII. VIII. IX.
That Respondent Obama made an Admission against Interest That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine As for de facto "Born a Citizen" of the 14* Amendment versus de jure "Natural-Born Citizen" conflation by Public Officers and Respondents
23 24 25 26 27 28
13
)C
The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict With Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates 21
CONCLUSION
22
1 2 3 4
An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The 2012 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery That subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Press Release shown as Exhibit 2 and Press Conference
established that there is the Preliminary Report

6 7 8 9
10 11
by the Sheriff's COLD CASE POSSE, as
an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "Natural-born citizen" shown as Exhibit 3 is the subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the Arizona primary
12
now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff's COLD CASE POSSE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
shown as Exhibit 4 supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime - Quote: "Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history including:. President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1 9 6 1 . Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly,
records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. " An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 is missing from the National Archives That in addition to the evidence of forgery o f t h e Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent
9
10 11 12
Obama's White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provides the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence and usurp the office of POTUS. That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 2012 forgery That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 5 is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript shown as Exhibit 6: and The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2007 proffered CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon the
27 28
admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the
1 2 3 4 5
April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released whne if fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the alleged request was made to Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner o f t h e supposed document Hawaii supposedly
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
released in 2008 is stamped June 6, 2007shov/n at Exhibit 7 as the FactCheck.org report on August 2 1 , 2008; and the later as the November 2 1 , 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do
Forensics; NH SOS a n d Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility'', and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission
13 14 15 16 17 18
against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of Irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence according to the definition in Black's Law Dictionary that defines "spoliation" as, "the intentional
19
destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document" (1).

20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to negligence, but in some instances the loss is occasioned by intentional and willful conduct. Elements of Spoliation
27 28
Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is
1 2 3 4 5
variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and against whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories: 1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit for which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and 2) whether
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
the spoliation was Intentional or negligent. As the less culpable "negligent" spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and egregious intentional spoliation, which - as noted above - first gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of an independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim:
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff; 2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is probable; 3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the spoliation plaintiff's underlying case; 4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff's underlying case; and
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant's acts. That although the State of California does recognize a separate cause of action for spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Respondent Obama from using the defenses that were referenced in the respective demurrer as a matter of defense claimed. That the California Court's recognition of an intentional spoliation claim was eventually overruled by
27 28
the California Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511
1 2 3 4 5
(Ca. 1998). Today, California - the birthplace o f t h e independent spoliation cause of action - does not recognize the tort as a stand alone claim. However, as this case may be the Respondent OBAMA White House website has removed the multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 2011 and has not only "flattened t h e " pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP)
9
10 11 12 13
provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry o f j u d g m e n t . In addition or to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort.
14 15 16 17 18 19
In California, the independent tort of spoliation was eliminated in favor of applying the remedy within the pending litigation as a discovery sanction. Cedars-Slnal Medical Ctr. v. Superior Court {1998), 18 Cal. 4th 1, 12. In federal courts, the spoliation concept was recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNAKrause et al. Claimants, Infra, is based on the inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and often arises from a request for
20
a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington A r m s {8^^ Cir 1988), 836 F.2d
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1104 , 1 1 1 1 . WIglngton v. CB Richard Ellis {10/2A/Q3 N.D.Ill) [p.7 slip opinion. "A party has a duty to preserve evidence over which it had control and 'reasonably knew or could reasonably foresee was material to a potential legal action.' ..."A party must preserve evidence that is properly discoverable under Rule 26. Discoverable evidence includes electronic data such as e-mail."..."A party does not have to go to extraordinary measures to preserve all potential evidence...It does not have to preserve every single scrap of
28
1 2 3 4 5
paper in its business...But a party must preserve evidence that it has notice is reasonably likely to be the subject of a discovery request even before a request is actually received.... Notice may be received before a complaint is filed if a party knows that litigation is likely to begin, or a party may be alerted by the complaint...."] That Respondent Obama made an Admissions against Interest
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
That Respondent Obama's mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 8 as well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 9 affirms has never used another name on his law license application, and further that Respondent Obama agents as shown in the transcript Exhibit 6 in regards to Exhibit 7 are all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a statement of another that reveals something incriminating, embarrassing,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability. In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
fact, but not amounting to a confession. That Respondent Obama has Unclean Hands The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not
27 28
be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore,
1 2 3 4 5
plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue. For example. If a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant may
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign the contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is shown that the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue at hand. In another example, when a brokerage firm claimed that its confidential client information was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not come to court with "clean hands" since the court found that firm demonstrated a similar lack of regard
13
for the competitor's confidential client information when it snared the same broker six
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
years earlier. The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues, specifically in cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in awarding support and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting any relief requested by Respondent
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Obama and his agents in the February 15, 2012 Demurrer. That Petitioner January 6, 2012 Petition does not violate the Laches Doctrine Notwithstanding the above assorted list of bars to Respondent Obama claiming a defense of laches paramount are the spoliation and concealment that have injured Petitioner along with those similarly , who nevertheless filed a timely petition within the statutory time as with any o f t h e candidate involved also and thereby for the Respondent
28
1 2 3 4
Obama to invoke laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer j u s t to grant the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches as a form of estoppel for delay.
In most contexts, an essential element of laches \s the requirement that the party
6 7 8 9
10 11
invoking the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded, or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the meantime, or the property in question may
12
already have been sold, or evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend
13 14 15 16 17 18
against the claim. Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of asserting laches \s on the party responding to the claim to which it applies. "When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss." Solow v. Nine States.
19
insuperable
20 21 22 23 24 25
West Group. 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001);
Simons v. United
452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay") As for de facto "Born a Citizen" of the 1 4 * Amendment versus de jure "Natural-Born Citizen" conflation by Public Officers and Respondents
26
As the Petitioner's affirmation shown with Exhibit 8 in the letter of the members of
27 28
Congress and various public officers including the various Courts having made serious
1 2 3 4 5
errors as evident in Exhibit 13 and by the analysis provided in Exhibit 12 by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of Ankeny and Georgia Malihi decision as well as the CA SOS instruction to use the 1 4 * Amendment "Born a Citizen" idiom rather than the term of art "natural-born Citizen" in direct contradiction the instructions shown on Exhibit 1 goes to not only gross negligence in the collapse of our education system but to the malice involved with
6 7 8 9
10 11
partisan vires ultra bias favoring the Respondent Obama herein in breach of the inherent duty created for all public officers in the sworn oath required with CA Const Article 20. The history of the 1 3 * Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6, 1865, and the 1 4 * amendment, which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868. So they
12
were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in
13 14 15 16 17 18
each bill. The 1 4 * amendment represented the overruling o f t h e Dred Scott decision ruling that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the
19
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 1 4 * amendment was never repealed, and that the left/progressives have totally perverted the 1 4 * Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. To truly understand the 1 4 * Amendment
27 28
1 2 3 4
and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you, must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates. The logical legislators to research in regard to debates is Senator Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 1 4 * amendment's
citizenship clause and co-author o f t h e 1 3 * amendment to abolish slavery was Illinois

6 7 8 9
10 11
Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 1 3 * amendment. Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 1 4 * Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was co-author o f t h e 1 4 * amendment's Citizenship Clause. The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 1 4 * Amendment,
12
Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Andrew Johnson; and in the chronological order o f t h e legislative debate presentation Representative John Bingham as reported in the Congressional Globe at page 1862 of the 3 7 * Congress 2"'' session page 1639 stated: "there is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens o f t h e United States; all parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians..." Next according to the 3 9 * Congress 1^' session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 1 1 , 1866 "A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the " Then A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:
1 2 3 4 5
"In section 1, line 3, after the word "That," insert, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and," On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, it was determined in the affirmative. Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over the House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull's amendment. John
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying: " I find no fault with the introduction clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;" The bill was then sent to President Johnson, and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto; and the next in Chronologically on to the 14* amendment as the congressional debates as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14* amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ofthe laws." During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote: "Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction. Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech stated ... "Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 16 of 22
length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the Unites States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections ofthe laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. .."
9
And Senator Edgar Cowen goes further to state:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
"I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a brad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of poring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the Unites States... I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power ofthe State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that." That on the matter of anchor babies is regards to how the term jurisdiction would
27 28
be applied. And agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction in
the proposed law and that as such Mr. Howard said quote:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
" This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and or in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. National law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born overseas. .." In regards to jurisdiction Mr. Trumbull at 1866 in the Congressional Globe 2893 said "The provisions is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navaho Indian are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the Unites States.?" Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means." In response Senator Howard responds quote: " I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "juris diction, " as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett stated "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens.
In SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. I l l
M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles o f t h e Law of Nations, which form a part o f t h e municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , i f t h e offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated.
27 28
The Chief Justice goes on to say:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
"Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is as satisfactory '3 "the answer to the foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration o f t h e enormity and dangerous tendency o f t h e offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, o f t h e quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each." In the SCOTUS case The Venus. 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice Marshal stated " Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands," says:
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or indigenizes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and too perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." The law of nations: or. Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty "Section 212. The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." In regards to Kim Wong Ark\r\ Chester Arthur and Justice Gray in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 Decided November 3, 1884, and it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years
27 28
later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
"The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President." And "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" US Constitution, Article I I Section 1 ; Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
of free negroes {Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens o f t h e United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia. 100 US 303, 100 US 306. In the matter of the Oath to be taken to America for purposes of naturalized citizenship:
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
" I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws o f t h e United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces o f t h e United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God." Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you
26
must take the oath, simple as that!

27 28
Vattel's authority as an institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited
in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
law of nations. The Statutory Duties Of The California Secretary Of State Are In Conflict with Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Candidates Based upon the foregoing. Petitioner contends that In the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012 before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility o f t h e CA SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
direction from the Legislature, records that Petitioners/Plaintiffs standing has properly accrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen. As Secretary o f State. Etc.. e t a l . No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 2 ) [ 4 1 ] "We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the law, including the Constitution. But as we will explain, our interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it is not the judiciary's role to judge the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does not invalidate section 13314, however, because the application of that section is not limited to challenging the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. Moreover, because our interpretation resolves this case, it is unnecessary to reach any other constitutional questions, even if we might have jurisdiction to do so." AND "Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Leiande (1912) 164 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. AND Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This Court agrees." (emphasis added)
1 2 3 4 5 6
CONCLUSION This Alternative Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioner's evidence that Barack Obama was at least "Born a Citizen" under the 14* Amendment definition rather than a "natural-born Citizen", with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even "Born a Citizen" in the USA per se; and further, supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation,
7 8 9
10
concealment
of
records,
admissions
against
interest
under
POTUS control
that
substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits by March 26, 2012 as printing of ballots starts on March 29, 2012. The Court must order:
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
] <
Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 travel microfilm; Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred from the ballot proving that he is actually a "natural-born Citizen" born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents;
A Peremptory Writ for Stay of CA SOS ballot printing until further order; A denial of the Respondent Obama et al. February 15, 2012 Demurrer in its entirety; A continuance grant for CA SOS opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ evidentiary hearing on the merits or about March 26, 2012 is decided;
A continuance in scheduling on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction hearing subject to the Alternative writ;
A continuance in scheduling with sufficient reason that would require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc
For further and different relief that the Court deems necessary for speedy justice herein. Respectfully Submitted, Date: March
iy
2012 ela Bamett, pro se, Petitioner 'the Ad Hoc California registered voters th service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 elephone: 530-845-5186
^ . i / i A ^ Californ

Barnett Memo Mar15 - 12

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Barnett Memo Mar15 - 12

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 2 3 4 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION

declared candidate be a natural born citizen. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3 Article 2, Section 1 13"^ Amendment

20 6,20 14,15,20 13-16,

A n k e n v v . Governor o f State o f Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678

Memorandum of Law by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. shown as Exhibit 12

VI. VII. VIII. IX.

established that there is the Preliminary Report

by the Sheriff's COLD CASE POSSE, as

destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document" (1).

West Group. 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001);

citizenship clause and co-author o f t h e 1 3 * amendment to abolish slavery was Illinois

And Senator Edgar Cowen goes further to state:

In SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. I l l

The Chief Justice goes on to say:

must take the oath, simple as that!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen