[rxsid]

I'm thinking it's not a bad "tactic" to take at all. Everything else tried has either failed (for various reasons) or is stalled at the moment. So, why not?

File a suit that says, very simply, "the defendant has publicly stated that a foreign government "governed" him at birth", "your honor, can a US NBC be governed at birth by a foreign power?"

Would the court simply "take his word" that such was the case? Or...would the court order discovery? If it turned out during the discovery that his (alleged) father's marriage to his (alleged) mother was not legal...and therefore he didn't have British citizenship at birth and therefore his public statement admitting such is not truthful...at least discovery would have occurred, possibly answering MANY other questions about Barry (i.e. real place of birth, real father, real mother, real birth date, etc).

Why not challenge him on his own "admission" of being governed at birth by a foreign power?

[Seizethecarp]

You appear to be suggesting an advisory opinion, really a document fishing expedition that might find something damaging, but for which no actual controversy yet exists (plaintiff with standing making a claim that a court is able to remedy).

See:

advisory opinion

n. an opinion stated by a judge or a court upon the request of a legislative body or government agency. An advisory opinion has no force of law but is given as a matter of courtesy. A private citizen cannot get an advisory ruling from a court and can only get rulings in an actual lawsuit. State attorneys general also give advisory opinions at the request of government officials. These opinions are often cited as the probable correct law on the subject but are not binding.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2358&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

actual controversy

n. a true legal dispute which leads to a genuine lawsuit rather than merely a “cooked up” legal action filed to get a court to give the equivalent of an advisory opinion. Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will only consider an “actual controversy”, on appeal, since they will not give advisory (informal) opinions or make judgments on “friendly suits” filed to test the potential outcome.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2319

Leo Donofrio thinks only Quo Warranto action brought by the US AG or the DC Circuit Court could be successful now that Obama has been sworn in, absent impeachment. Quo Warranto, unlike a civil or criminal lawsuit, puts the burden of proof on Obama to show that he is eligible. See Leo’s site for details:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/