Posted on 03/02/2009 11:07:14 AM PST by Calpernia
Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA
March 1, 2009
Honorable Attorney General Holder
Re: Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court
Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Nicely, State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation. Relators include:
Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama, in the 2008 Electoral College;
Frank Nicely, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;
Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;
Major General Carroll Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous decorations
1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq;
Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals
Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC, Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor.
James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat V and two Purple Hearts
Relator’s oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.
Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest, e.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.
This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii’s privacy laws. Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Election Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art II - 1 and Amend. XX – 3.
As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX – 3.
Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.
1) Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.
2) Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox’s reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.
3) Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, ESQ DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.
4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.
5) Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.
With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.
Yours Sincerely,
Orly Taitz, ESQ
Attorney for Relators
Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article I
Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . . .
The SENATE failed in their duty when BHO was elected there to judge his qualifications. I think that Constitutionally is the only entity who holds ‘standing’ according to The Constitution.
The Honorable Orly Taitz may have to locate a Senator willing to be a plaintiff. Maybe one who lost the election to BHO from Illinois or one who was in the Senate when he was there and who has since not been reelected.
I can’t imagine the SC telling the people who defend us that they have no standing. Of course I never imagined US citizens willingly turning our country over to the enemy.
Candidates that were on the ballot are considered as having standing.
Electors form the election are considered as having standing.
Active MIL are considered as having standing.
Blood relatives are considered as having standing.
Representatives from states that have sovereignty on the table are considered as standing.
Orly Taitz works for Alan Keyes. He was on the Senatorial ballot. He was also on the Presidential Ballot.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government
Mario Appuzo is suing Congress (among others) for that failure.
Mario Apuzzo bump!
I found the following interesting:
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or
influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes
or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written
or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his
conviction. (b) For the purposes of this section, the
term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States,
the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is
commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]
***********************************************************
And this is what Orly allegedly said to Military.com about her knowledge of said Law:
California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her “understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.”
At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.
Orly is not sweating it out in the desert in Iraq.
It is a different matter entirely for Active Military like Lt. Easterling.
An Army Lieutenant simply does not have the discretion to disobey an Order unless he can prove that said Order is unlawful.
Orly has not proven that any of BO’s Orders are unlawful.
Frankly, I doubt that Orly can prove anything other than she might be a fair Dentist.
You said — “At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.”
I would suggest to Orly’s clients — to “get a lawyer” before they join up with *that* lawyer... LOL..
The Oklahoma legislator who is putting through that bill to make it a law to show specific documentation to prove that one is qualified for office (not just the President, but all offices, too...) — was also thinking about joining in the case. BUT, he also wisely said he would be consulting with some oversight committee in the legislature about what legislators are allowed to do and what is proper and what is not — and in addition to that, he is going to consult with his own lawyer, first, too — before he proceeds. And he won’t proceed until he gets that “okay” from them...
That’s probably why he’s successful at the current time. And it’s the ignoring of these kinds of things that get other people “in trouble”, too... :-)
—
Really! It’s one thing if you know exactly what you’re getting into and you are willing to *pay the price* for it. That would be what a good lawyer would do, let you know about any such consequences and what can happen. If one goes ahead on that basis and their life is ruined from that point forward — at least they can’t say that they didn’t understand or thought that their “cause” was “righteous enough” so that they couldn’t lose...
117 posted on Monday, March 02, 2009 4:48:52 PM by Star Traveler
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
***No thanks.
Well maybe Dan rather can come out of retirement, or wherever he went, and get on it
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or
influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes
or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written
or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his
conviction. (b) For the purposes of this section, the
term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States,
the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is
commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]
***********************************************************
And this is what Orly allegedly said to Military.com about her knowledge of said Law:
California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her “understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.”
At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or
influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes
or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written
or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his
conviction. (b) For the purposes of this section, the
term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States,
the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is
commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]
***********************************************************
And this is what Orly allegedly said to Military.com about her knowledge of said Law:
California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her “understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.”
At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.
Orly is not sweating it out in the desert in Iraq.
It is a different matter entirely for Active Military like Lt. Easterling.
An Army Lieutenant simply does not have the discretion to disobey an Order unless he can prove that said Order is unlawful.
Orly has not proven that any of BO’s Orders are unlawful.
Frankly, I doubt that Orly can prove anything other than she might be a fair Dentist.
And this is what Orly allegedly said to Military.com about her knowledge of said Law:
California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her “understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.”
At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
***Like I already said, no thanks.
Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
***Like I already said, no thanks. Maybe it’s time for you to put down the bong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.