Posted by
Glenn Flowers on Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:24:23 AM
NOTE: What follows is a letter sent to US Attorney for The District of Columbia by Jacobo L. Martinez, Captain-USMC-Retired. It was sent because Capt. Martinez discovered that the District of Columbia has the specific jurisdiction over eligibility of elected officials under the federal statutes. This code also establishes the Constitution as federal law.
This is the answer to the lack of standing that doomed all the lawsuits filed before the SCOTUS. The US Attorney must file the suit on behalf of the people. Tthe District of Columbia has unique authority to file original cases (not an appeal) before the SCOTUS.
March 20, 2009
Mr. Jeffrey Taylor
U.S. Attorney For The District of Columbia
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: President Barack H. Obama’s Eligibility To Be Our President
Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a Citizen of the United States of America and a retired Marine Corps Officer, I have the deepest concern for the safety and security of our country.
The fact is that there is a need for this nation to hear and resolve the issue of Barack H. Obama’s eligibility for office. I base this statement on the Constitutional requirement (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of Natural Born Citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office, I have reviewed the definition of Natural Born Citizen as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. This definition of citizenship goes back centuries!
Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President! It is a fact that Obama was born a subject of the British Crown. He openly admits his father is a British Subject at the time of his birth.
Here are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I implore you, URGENTLY, to investigate on your own:
• 1758 Vattel’s "The Law of Nations" –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution.
• 1787-1788 The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington.
• Article II, Section I, United States Constitution.
• The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of "Natural Born" from the 1790 Act in 1795.
• The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen.
• Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" discussion .
Our Nation is at grave risk. This issue MUST be addressed. Citizens across this nation, to include myself, are asking this question: Is Obama qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief. The public protests are beginning.
There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume it will go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!
Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, and now our loyal service men and woman are in personal jeopardy!
The survival of our nation is at stake. This issue will not go away.
For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the United States. As an American Citizen and a retired military Veteran, I implore you to please Issue a Quo Warranto to provide The USA citizenry an answer to this constitutionally vital question.
Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:
• The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.
• Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.
• Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.
• The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.
• Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.
• Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.
• Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…". Note the word "or".
• Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment - and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.
• SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.
• Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.
• Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.
• The best possible candidates who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.
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.
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, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
For your information, I have also taken the liberty to include the following web sites, which will hopefully provide you with other evidence relating to this issue, that I believe support my concerns.. This evidence was meticulously put together by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo Ca 92691, ph-949-683-5411 fax 949-586-2082 and some were shared with Mr. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, Main 202-514-2000, Attorney General 202-353-1555,http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ on or about February 27, 2009 and hand delivered to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts on or about March 12, 2009:
Open Letter From Brigadier General Charles Jones: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 4, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/05/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jone.aspx
Col. Riley-Former Division Chief National Security Agency Joins Our Action: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 23, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/col-riley-former-division-chief-national-security-agency-joins-our-action-2.aspx
Major General-Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit : Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 24, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx
Motion to Reconsider Lightfoot V Bowen:Hand Delivered To U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts: Hand Delivered and Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 12, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.org/motiontoreconsiderLightfootvBowen.htm
Dossiers and Getting The Word Out: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/dossiers-and-getting-the-word-out.aspx
Dr. Orly Taitz's Interview By Rollye James: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/orly-taitzs-interview-by-rollye-james.aspx
This is a Chalice Radio Talk Show interview with Mr. Leo Donofrio, which I also took the liberty of sharing with you, as a means of providing you with more background information relating to this issue:
The Chalice Show - Leo Donofrio Live: On March 18, 2009:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PatriotsHeartNetwork/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/03/19/The-Chalice-Show-Leo-Donofrio-Live
I have also attached a copy of my resume for your review.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this time sensitive and urgent issue.
Disclaimer:
Although I share numerous resources with you, as a means of supporting my concerns, it does not necessarily mean that I support and/or agree with the contents of all of them, word-by-word, but find them thought provoking because, they provide me with other views besides my own and, thereby, help me make my case.
As a retired Marine Corps Veteran Officer (Mustang), I pride myself with loving my God, family, friends and my country. Those Military and/or Veteran Comrades, that I am honored to call friends, know that I would never intentionally say or do anything that would hurt or demean anyone, to include my God and Country.
I have always preached to my own family and follow the rule of "filtering everything that comes from my brain through my heart before it comes out of my mouth" and this rule has done me well for almost 62 years of my life and would highly recommend it to anyone that dares to share their own views with others, knowing that they may not have the same views, but are able and willing to accept that and not take it personal.
I also consider the sharing of these concerns to be given me under our "FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS", which I consider as one of the corner stones of our "Constitution’s 1st Amendment," and, as an American Citizen, I believe that it is my "God Given Duty" to stand up for and defend this or any other rights given me under our Constitution, as other God and Country loving Americans in uniform have done in the past and continue to this date.
I seek your immediate response to my grave concern.
God Bless You & God Bless America.
Respectfully,
Jacobo L. Martinez
Captain-USMC-Retired
Albuquerque, NM 87123-3798
See the townhall blog by Capt. Martinez
This is the key to challenging Obama’s eligibility. It answers, specifically, the court’s reasoning for dismissing all other cases.
The US Attorney for D.C., Jeffery Taylor, needs to be convinced that the We the People of America are truly concerned about Obama’s eligibility. If he sees that there is a substantial number of citizens who are truly concerned about the nation’s well being, he might decide to file the suit on our behalf. If he does, it can not be dismissed, it must go to trial.
Let Jeffery Taylor hear from you. Let’s give this one more BIG effort for the sake of our country. This is the procedure I’ve been searching for. This is why all other cases failed.
America and the Constitution is worth our efforts. That is the least we can do for the USA.
I have posted two letters below, a short and a long. Copy, change the date at top, your name, address, etc. at bottom, print, sign, and send. It needs to go via US Postal Service.
Glenn Flowers
**************************************************************************************
SHORT VERSION
March 29, 2009
Mr. Jeffrey Taylor - U.S. Attorney For The District of Columbia
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: President Barack H. Obama’s Eligibility To Be Our President
Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required.
It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.
There have been numerous suits filed addressing this, only to be dismissed because of lack of standing. The public has become outraged from being told that they have no right to file a suit, or that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore. Many protests have taken place and more will.
Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:
• The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.
• Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.
• Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.
• The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting president may be removed by the Judicial branch.
• Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting president found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.
• Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.
• Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…". Note the word "or".
• Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment - and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.
• SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.
• Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of president for the good of the nation.
• Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.
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.
Name
Address
City, State Zip
Phone
**********************************************************************************8
LONG VERSION
March 29, 2009
Mr. Jeffrey Taylor - U.S. Attorney For The District of Columbia
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: President Barack H. Obama’s Eligibility To Be Our President
Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required, (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of natural born citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office.
I have researched the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. It defines "Natural Born" as being born of two US citizens who are under no other jurisdiction or allegiance. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President!
This definition of citizenship has a long history in British Common Law and the framers were very familiar with the concept. In 1677 a law was passed intended to insure that a child born to a British couple would be a British subject, even if born aboard a ship or on foreign territory. This was to be citizenship by blood, not by soil. The framers drew upon this definition to establish a super class of citizen, applicable only to the eligibility for the office of president. They foresaw the possibility that a person NOT born and raised by US citizens, or by only one citizen, might not have the zeal and love for and dedication to this country and would act against the best interests of the People and the nation. Barack Obama has shown that he is a model of what the founders did NOT want to become president.
It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.
Here are several references to the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" that you may investigate on your own:
• 1758 Vattel’s "The Law of Nations" –The founders relied on many of the principles in this when writing the Constitution.
• 1787-1788 The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington.
• Article II, Section I, United States Constitution.
• The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of "Natural Born" from the 1790 Act in 1795.
• The writer of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define "Natural Born Citizen".
• Congressional hearing on dual citizenship, 2005, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" discussion
Our Nation is at grave risk of being transformed from a republic to a democratic socialism, or worse, by Obama. This issue must be addressed to determine if Obama is qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief. There have been numerous suits filed addressing this, only to be dismissed because of lack of standing. The public has become outraged from being told that they have no right to file a suit, or that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore. Many protests have taken place and more will. There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume that this issue will be forgotten and will just go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!
Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, questions whther or not he has a Commander in Chief.
For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you alone are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the People of the United States. As an American citizen and a military veteran, I implore you to please address this Constitutional dilemma and issue and a Quo Warranto and provide the People of the USA a lawful answer to this constitutional question.
Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:
• The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.
• Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.
• Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.
• The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting president may be removed by the Judicial branch.
• Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting president found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.
• Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.
• Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…". Note the word "or".
• Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment - and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.
• SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.
• Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of president for the good of the nation.
• Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.
• The best possible candidates to request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the president’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.
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.
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, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
If I can be of any assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Name
Address
City, State Zip
Phone