Barnett ExParte 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 S U P E R I O R COURT O F
, EI
iFiLtD
NDORSED
; i2MAR 15 P I,: 01, M .; , LEGAL PROCESS ^'f.

CALIFORNL^L
COUNTY O F SACRAMENTO
6
Case No.:
7 8 9
Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott Petitioners,
Relate Case No.: 34-2012-80001048 EX PARTE PAMELA BARNEIT'S PREEMPTORY WRIT WITH ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING Date: Time: Dept: Judge: March ^6, 2012 9:00 a.m. 31 Hon. Michael P. Kenny
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Debra Bowen individually and officially as The California Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor Sacramento, CA, 95814; Barack Hussein Obama I I ; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. Respondents.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF Ôb^

)
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I, Pamela Barnett, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: That Petitioner Pamela Barnett, self represented without an attorney, having duly notified Plaintiffs Edward C. Noonan, along with Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott having affirmed as Ad Hoc registered voters of California, each self represented without an attorney, hereby submits for a Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with alternative writ for an expedited evidentiary hearing on the Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 1 of 25
1 2 3 4
merits of the evidence and a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) 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
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
evidentiary hearing on the merits of the evidence proffered to date that is sufficient to also 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 (the State, CA SOS, SOS) Demurrer with Memorandum filed February 16, 2012 by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. HakI, Esq. with return date of April 20, 2012, and that the State be granted further opportunity to
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented; 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 that require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc.
20
1. That as a Preliminary statement Petitioner opposes Respondent Barack Obama's

21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Demurrer proffer of the ridiculous notion that somehow Respondent Obama may speak for the California Secretary of State, which is a complete and total fallacy, to be considered by this Court as a frivolous contention submitted in bad faith, and to suggest that somehow an individual who is not a duly sworn public officer in the state of California may be granted authority of compelling state action against public policy. 2. That on September 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 , the CA SOS, Deborah Bowen issued instructions (see
28
Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Heanng on Merits and Continuance
Page 2 of 25
1 2 3 4
Exhibit 1) also available at http://www.sos.ca.qov/elections/2012-elections/iuneprimary/pdf/dem-president-2012.pdf to any prospective candidate(s) for the Office of POTUS from the Democratic party in preparation for the June 5, 2012 Democratic Primary And that the CA SOS Instructions at Part 1 Qualification mandated that any candidate for
POTUS be eligible for that office according to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and
6 7 8 9
10 11
specifically meets the quote: " I. QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. I I , 1 cl. 5 " 3. That according to the California State Constitution at Article 20 the Oath of office taken as a duly elected public officer, in which there is a inherent duty on the part of
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
^ ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS [ Required Oath of Office ] [ Source: http://www.leainfo.ca.gov/.const/.article 20 ] SEC. 3. Members ofthe Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution ofthe State of California: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter, (emphasis added) "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow ofthe Government ofthe United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means: that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: (emphasis added) (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California bv force or violence or other unlawful means." (emphasis added)
Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance
Page 3 of 25
1 2 3 4
the Secretary of State to determine whether President Obama or any other presidential candidate meets the eligibility requirements o f t h e U.S. Constitution; and 4. As far as Petitioner can surmise by reading the code and instructions of the State Legislature and Congress as well as the CA SOS Notice provided to each candidate, shown
as Exhibit 1 for the Democrats, is that only Respondent Bowen has the duty as CA SOS
6 7 8 9
10 11
under CAEC 6041^^^ to select the democratic party candidates for the party as there appears there is no express authority delegated by the CA State Legislature to the Democratic Party per se or any other party for that matter; so it's all of the CA SOS responsibility to create and certify the "the list" of candidates. 5. Petitioner contends that the inherent statutory duties of the California secretary of
12
state are in conflict with regards to verifying eligibility of national presidential candidates
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
as the California Constitution mandates that the Secretary of State uphold her inherent duties which is overseen by the Legislators and Executive to enforce with impeachment. 6. The California Constitution - Article I I states: SECTION 5. The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, Including an open presidential primary whereby the
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality ofany ofthe foregoing. ^ CAEC 6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate Is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. Between the 150th day and the 68th day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election, (emphasis added)
Page 4 of 25
candidates on the ballot are those found bv the Secretary o f State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office o f President o f t h e United States, a n d those whose names are placed on the ballot b y petition, b u t excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit o f noncandidacy. (emphasis added) 7. To be a "recognized candidate" the U.S. Constitution, Art I I mandates that: "/Vo 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." 8. It is a constitutional
9
mandated duty for the Secretary of State to make a only recognized candidates."
determination
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
to place on the ballot
9. Petitioner contends that RESPONDENT OBAMA despite the notice provided to Respondent Obama and his agents to comply with California Election Code and the US Constitution as shown as Exhibit 1, Respondent Obama nevertheless admits he is merely on the honor system of self checking his eligibility states in the Demurrer MOL that quote: "either President Obama nor his campaign committee have any legal obligation to provide proof of the President's qualifications as a "natural born citizen" to the Secretary of State in order to establish his eligibility to appear on the ballot as a presidential candidate, much less for him to be able to engage in fundraising activities in California." thereby falls to state which of the duties that Secretary of State fails to apply to him as would apply to any other candidate in the state running for office for ballot access per the California Elections Code and the U.S. Constitution accused of fraud contends there is no check required. 10. That according to California Law that also dictates the duties the Secretary of
24 25 26 27 28
State, including the duty as chief elections officer of California, to ensure election laws are followed (California Government Code [hereinafter referred to as "CGC] 12172.5), the duty to investigate election fraud (CGC 12172.5), and the duty to advise candidates and local elections officials on the qualifications and requirements for running for office.
Page 5 of 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
a. 12172.5. The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and shall administer the provisions ofthe Elections Code. I. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficlentiv conducted and that state election laws are enforced. The Secretary of State may require elections officers to make reports concerning elections In their jurisdictions. II. If at anv time, the Secretary of State concludes that state election laws are not being enforced, the Secretary of State shall call the violation to the attention ofthe district attornev ofthe countv or to the Attornev General. In these instances, the Secretary of State mav assist the countv elections officer In discharging his or her duties. iii. In order to determine whether an elections law violation has occurred the Secretary of State may examine voted, unvoted, spoiled and canceled ballots, vote-counting computer programs, vote by mail ballot envelopes and applications, and supplies referred to in Section 14432 of the Elections Code. The Secretary of State mav also examine anv other records of elections officials as he or she finds necessarv In making his or her determination. subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 6253.5. iv. The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to assure the uniform application and administration of state election laws. (emphasis added) 11.Petitioner contends that CA SOS in order to fulfill her duty to advise candidates, there are several documents on the California Secretary of State website informing all who are seeking elected office as to the qualifications and requirements for each elected position. Documents listing the qualifications and requirements are provided for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor; Secretary of State, Controller and Treasurer;
20
Attorney General; Insurance Commissioner; Member of the State Board of Equalization;

21 22 23 24 25 26
State Senator and Member of Assembly; United States Senator; United States Representative in Congress; and President of the United States. The SOS currently verifies that every candidate for these positions, except for that of the office of President of the United States, meets the requirements for each respective office is inherent to her oath. 12.Since the CA SOS does have a ministerial duty to verify the eligibility for nearly all
27
of the candidates for office, it is not improper to infer that she also has a ministerial duty
28
Page 6 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
to verify the eligibility of those who are running for the office of President of the United States in a timely manner under the requirements of CAEC 6041 before the party primary; as election of Federal officers is done at the state level on a state by state basis under the plenary authority of the respective state legislature as a matter of compelling state interest - no Federal elections are Federal other than by related law.
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
13. However, Petitioner contends that California Elections Code 6901 is at odds with remainder of the CA SOS's duties specified in California law before the general election, because this statute directs that the CA SOS must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates. The effect of this statute is that the SOS's duty to ensure compliance with election law is suspended in favor of some other entity. 14. Petitioner absolutely denies Respondent Obama's absurd allegation that Writ of Mandate in the present case is virtually somehow
13 14 15 16 17 18
the Petition for Prerogative
identical to the
Petition Keves v. Bowen, as the Petition herein is both timely and laches does not apply; and therefore does not suffer from the same fatal defects of a case filed after the general
election as was done in Keves v. Bowen. 15. Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012
19
before the primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility of the CA
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SOS in a time-frame held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express 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 I. 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
Page 7 of 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14
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 o f 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) 16.Statute (Section) 13314 fully supports Petitioners' standing to have this petition heard on the merits and gives this court the full power to grant petitioners' prayers for
15
relief even without the State having a ministerial duty unfilled as that is not stated as a
16 17 18 19 20 21
requirement for relief to the Petitioners. That prior to March 1, 2012, Petitioners did properly allege inter alia that President Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" (NBC) eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS) - not because he was not born in the United States, but because his father was not a U.S. citizen and seek a writ of mandate to compel Secretary of State Bowen to "bar Respondent Obama ballot access in
22
California along with those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming an
23 24 25 26 27 28
elector slate for 'the office of POTUS for California." (Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fund Raising ("Petition"), @P18.); and further, 17. The Petition does also seek a "permanent restraining order" barring Barack
Obama or his campaign committee from fundraising in this election cycle, because Respondent Obama is not NBC eligible for the Office of POTUS, spoliates evidence and
Page 8 of 25
1 2 3 4
committed fraud in conspiracy to avoid detection from investigation of allegiances. 18. That Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama by counsel in the Demurrer
has improperly concluded that Barack Obama "is, of course, a 'natural born citizen,' born in the United States to a mother who was an American citizen, and is thus fully qualified
to be President u n d e r t h e U.S. Constitution."

6 7 8 9
10 11
19.
The allegation proffered by Respondent Obama's counsel in the Demurrer
directly contradicts every historical basis with related law to consider Respondent eligible for Office of POTUS when his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother who was married to a majority aged British subject ineligible for U.S. Citizenship would at best be merely considered "Born a Citizen" as the assumption required by the 14'^ Amendment; and
12
20.
13 14 15 16 17 18
That moreover, subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on
March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Press Release (see Exhibit 2) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report 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
19
1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "Natural-born citizen" with a picture of the
20 21 22 23 24 25
Sheriff's webpage appended (see Exhibit 3) and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report o f t h e Sheriff's COLD CASE POSSE (see 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:
26 27 28
"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
Page 9 of 25
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. " Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE
9
10 11 12
21.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
shown as Exhibit 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see 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 (see Exhibit 6 ) : and 22. The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2008
proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the 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. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2 0 0 7 {see Exhibit 7) as shown by the FactCheck.org report
27
on August 2 1 , 2008; and the later as the November 2 1 , 2008 report appended shows the
28
Page 10 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to ^Êligibility 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 against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. 23. That Petitioner in her January 2, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and travel records of Respondent Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) (Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4 , 1 9 6 1 , received on December 10, 2010 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed "Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah" from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit 8 ) , therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and 24. Further, Petitioner contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
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 Obama's White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenant, 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
27 28
Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to
Page 11 of 25
1 2 3 4
make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence. 25. As Further evidence. Petitioner provides additional proof that Respondent
Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an

6 7 8 9
10 11
Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit 9). 26. Further, Petitioner opposes Respondent Obama's contention that this Court
lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners' claims because federal law that with limitation of Article
12
2 Section 1 establishes the procedures for election of the President, and that somehow
13 14 15 16 17 18
the exclusive means of challenging the qualifications of a presidential candidate is to present an objection before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15 is totally preposterous on its face primarily because elections are conducted separately at the state level with original state jurisdiction afforded to the respective state court; and as evidence that Respondent Obama's contention is obstreperous and offered in bad faith
19
Petitioner offers into evidence the actual response of Congressman in regards to the
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
supposed original duty somehow vested in the Congress is wrong (see Exhibit 10) and is evidenced by the reaction of various Congressmen and US Senate Judiciary Committee: Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14'^ Amend, and courts on November 1 1 , 2008 wrote: The ability to receive United States citizeiship is one oflhe core pillars in our great democracy. It is outlined in thc Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution and Section 301(a) ofthe Immigration and NatioDality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. Section 1401(:i)), thai a person who is bom in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen ofihe United Suites regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. Additionally, according to the U.S. Constitution, only a natural bom citizen or a citizen of tlie United States of, at minimum, ihirtyfive years ofage and fourteen years of United States residency, is eligible to run for the President of the United States. Ln regard to Senator Obaina, there is a federal lawsuit pending in Penasj'lvania addressing lliis matter. However, as a United States Senator, I cannot intervene in the legal piTxess and must defer to the courts to make the appropriate decision about this case. Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 12 of 25
1 2 3 4
Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:
Senator Obama has provided several news orgtmizfitions with a copy of his birth cea-tiTicatc, sliowing he was burn in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii beeame a state in 1959, and all individuals bofn iu Hawaii aRcr ils admission are considered nalurdl-born United States citizens. 'ITic same is true for individuals, such as Senator McCain, bom in the Panama Canal Zone.
Senator Jon Kyi defers to the internet on December 1 , 2008 wrote:

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pitsident-elect Obaiiia tticcts thc constrlulianul romiircinrtils lor presidential otticc. Rumors pertaining to his cici/cnship sluluii huvc l-nscu Ctrculating on the Intemet, and this information hiis been deburikctl by SuOpes.conu which invcsticaujs the truth behind Internet rumoib. For iciuic LiLfonHatioh, youi may wans to visit 3Hip://sflOjxts.c<'iw.''[xn1irics'obmna.''citizcn.aap. Au for llie l e ^ l Chii l leiigps ti> the Hresidsnt-elecl's Ciliaeaiship. ottc of those ca.tcs is peadiiig befo rc the 5<ii|ircrni: Court. i
Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & "proper authorities" on December 4 , 2008 wrote:
Thank you fbr contacting me regarding President-elect Obama. 1 have heard some of the same reports that you mention about \ h . Obama. Of course, the voters have spoken pretty clearly, and so now we vsill move on. I do expect that the news media and the proper autiiorities will look into any reports which have caused people concem, and tliat any evidence of legitimate concern will be appropriately addressed. I will continue to monitor these issues closely, as well.
Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:
Senate ethics mles preclude me from becoming pcr.sonally involved in pendinjj litigntion. I sincerely hope this matter can be fully and promptly resolved by the courts. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have a question regarding on issue over which I have jurisdiction.
Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009 wrote:
As you are aware, stories have circulated that call into question President Obama's citizenship. Additionally, various lawsuits have been fded alleging that Obama is not a natural bom citizen of the United Slates, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, President Obama released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity. As you may know, on January 8, 2009, Congress certified and tallied the Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United Slates.
Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009 wrote:
Many have contacted me regarding the numerous claims and lawsuits c i r c u l a t i n g on the internet asserting that Obama i s not a natural born c i t i z e n and therefore i n e l i g i b l e t o become United States President. However, President-elect Obama has presented his b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , showing that he was born i n Hawaii, and i t has been v e r i f i e d and confirmed by Hawaiian o f f i c i a l s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Supreme Court has declined t o act on any of the cases contesting Obama's c i t i z e n s h i p . On January 8, 2009, Members of Congress were given the opportunity t o cojitest the issue i n a j o i n t session of Congress, but no such otjjection was raised during the meeting. Byâll accounts. President-elect Barack Obama meets those requirements. Please be assured that I w i l l continue t o monitor the s i t u a t i o n should f u r t h e r issues arise.
Page 13 of 25
Rep. Steve King defers to the 14'^ Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:
Wliile I do not understand why President Obama has refused to. produce cx'idenc^ to clear up this question, my oflice has discovered confirmation that puts the question to rest. You unil find attached a copy of President Obama's birth aimouncement in die Honolulu Advertiser, dated August 13, 1961. This shows that President Obama was born in the United States and is therefore an American citizen under the 14* Amendment to tlie United. States Constitution.
Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14'^ Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:

Presidenl Obama meets these constitutional requirements, He u'as born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in thc United States are considered citizens of the Uniied States. Under these criteria. President Obama, a 47-ycar old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible lo bc President.
Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
February 6, 2009 wrote:

On October 31, 2008, the Director of Hawaii's Department of Heallh confirmed that President Obama was in fact bom in Honolulu. The Heallh Director personally verified that Hawaii's Health Depanment holds the President's original birth certificate. The existence and accuracy oflhe birth certificate also was verified by the non-partisan drganixation FactChcck.org which senl a representative to Hawaii to analyze the birth certificate in person. Additionally, nine days after President Obama's birth, a birth announcement was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday Aug. 13, 1961.
Petitioner can go on to document further gross negligence on the part of Congressmen and the affect of the willful spoliation and concealment activities of Respondent Obama. 27. Petitioner opposes RESPONDENT Obama's contention that only the Electors
of his party can decide if he is qualified. Respondent Obama quotes Robinson v. Bowen. (189 Cal. App. 4 * at p.661 [supra, 567 F. Supp. 2d at p. 1147]) ''Therefore, any challenge
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to President Obama's eligibility to serve as President "Is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least In the first Instance. - - not to the Secretary of State or this court."" fails to address the fact that Petitioner's timely filing before the primary ballot is created renders the contention inapplicable and shoulders the determination for ballot access upon the CA SOS and or the Court herein and that the Congress is not compelled by express law to required proof of eligibility other than that
26
inherent in each member's oath of office like that of the CA SOS.

27 28
28.
Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama's contention of authority to
Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance Page 14 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
determine eligibility rests with the electoral college is in conflict with the instructions of the California State legislature that such body has no individual elector discretion other than to merely be a vessel to carry a mandatory vote and as such presupposes other powers that do not exist under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 1 ^^ as ^ the President and Vice President are chosen by Electors a the state level independently
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia (see Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its sfafe college of Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
29.
In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on the
ballot to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the name of the candidate for President and Vice President, that they, the Elector, have pledged they will support. It is fully understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are the representative "stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some states, in past years,
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
this pledge was informal, and an Elector could still legally cast their electoral ballot for whomever they chose. More recently, some state legislatures and the California State legislature (exercising their constitutional authority to do so) of 26 or so have mandated
^ The US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2: Method of choosing electors Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office ofTrust or Profit underthe United States, shall be appointed an Elector, (emphasis added)
Page 15 of 25
1 2 3 4
in law that Electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are pledged. 30. Petitioner contends as such the State legislature of California has the plenary
authority and duty with which it may delegate responsibility to electors by express law,
5
and is limited as the SCOTUS expressed In McPherson v. Blacken 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
Court cited Article I I , Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote that these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power." and that based upon information belief does not grant delegation of responsibility as such and may not grant authority to any quasi political party apart from state control and oversight and may not grant such authority without an amendment to
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the US Constitution; however, at point the legislature does not have authority to relinquish its authority per se in regards to the legislature's election of a candidate for President / Vice President; and a such the legislature shares its authority to determine by assertion of law the responsibility to determine the eligibility to meet the qualifications of its candidate be in conformance with precedent and historical practice informing the duties of the Executive along with the Secretary of State as artificial person public officers as
20
defined under State Public Officer law; and therefore, such express or implied instruction
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
along with the actions of public officers as well as the inherent powers supposedly granted to the electors are subject to judicial review herein. 31. That Petitioner contends that the Legislature Judiciary and Executive are
without authority to write legislation redefining the term of art Natural Born Citizen as that
Page 16 of 25
1 2 3 4
would require an amendment to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as related law ^'^^ , and is absent to date as shown by the Letters in Exhibit 10. 32. Petitioner also contends that an elector who is bound by law in California (as
in 26 others states) to vote only for the person elected in the advisory vote of the electors
5
at the general election relieves any discretion in that the candidate must be eligible prior
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
to ballot access; and where the other 25 states the electors may vote for anyone he/she chooses, as such may afford some discretion to determine eligibility. However, there is no binding requirement as a result of the "advisory vote" of the electors at the primary or general election as in California that has to be followed - unless there is a criminal conspiracy to usurp the office of POTUS by design and even as evidence over the last 4 years remains under investigation only in Arizona by one Sheriff with authority Joe Arpaio.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
33.
Petitioner in light of the evidence herewith contends that for RESPONDENT
Obama to suggest that there is somehow a waiver of the requirements for eligibility just because someone doesn't verify such still does not change the requirements of eligibility or overcome the requirement to qualify for office, and remains a jackpot situation that automatically vacates the office on its face that then falls back to the individual
US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5: Qualifications for office 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. By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be: natural born citizens - person born in the USA of US Citizen parents, Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162. at least thirty-five years old inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years. Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were modified by subsequent amendments: The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet all of the qualifications of being a President; and The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a President from being elected more than twice.
Page 17 of 25
1 2 3 4
c o m m i t t i n g t h e f r a u d as a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r t o be p r o s e c u t e d in t h e respective s t a t e , p e r h a p s A r i z o n a ; and t h a t t h e failure t o m e e t t h e qualification f o r office of POTUS w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y incapacitate t h e a t t e m p t of u s u r p a t i o n as v o i d ab i n i t i o , a n d t h e r e b y r e q u i r i n g a c c o r d i n g t o Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 t h e n e x t person in line w i t h eligibility
5 t o m e e t t h e qualification 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ^ US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6: Vacancy and disability In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The wording o f t h i s clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the Vice President would become President, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an Acting President. Harrison's Vice President, John Tvler, believed that he had the right to become President. However, many Senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler ended up taking the Oath of Office and became President, setting a precedent that is followed to this day. Tyler's precedent made it possible for Vice Presidents Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge. Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson to ascend to the presidency (Gerald Ford took office after the passage of the Twenty-fifth Amendment). Tyler's precedent established that if the President's office becomes vacant due to death, resignation or disqualification, the Vice President becomes President. The Congress may provide for a line of succession beyond the Vice President. The Presidential Succession Act establishes the order as: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate and then the fifteen Cabinet Secretaries in order of that Department's establishment. The Twenty-fifth Amendment explicitly states that when the Presidency is vacant, then the Vice President becomes President. This provision applied at the time Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency. In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress, a new Vice President. Furthermore, the Amendment provides that the President, or the Vice President and Cabinet, can declare the President unable to discharge his duties, in which case the Vice President becomes Acting President. I f t h e declaration is done by the Vice President and Cabinet, the Amendment permits the President to take control back, unless the Vice President and Cabinet challenge the President and two-thirds of both Houses vote to sustain the findings of the Vice President and Cabinet. If the declaration is done by the President, he may take control back without risk of being overridden by the Congress. 34. T h a t as p a r t of t h e CA SOS d u t i e s t o m a k e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of eligibility SOS
v e t t e d t h e presidential C o n s t i t u t i o n a l qualification f o r ballot access of Peace and F r e e d o m
Page 18 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
candidates, as shown by the copy of the campaign flier, press release and notarized correspondence regarding denial of ballot access (see Exhibit 11). This is further evidence of arbitrary and capricious action by CA SOS Bowen in her use of discretion to vet and single out POTUS candidates when they are honest and forth coming with their qualifications according to the CA SOS Notice shown as Exhibit 1 uses the criteria of
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
eligibility against everyone except the Democrats and Respondent Obama in particular. 35. Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama has improperly used the false
conclusion drawn by the Indiana Court in A n k e n v v . Governor o f State o f Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 that was again used by Judge Malihi decision after the 26 January 2012 hearing in Georgia at which sworn testimony on the merits was entered on the record of any court proceeding for the first time since 2008 when the court proceeding
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
started and were systematically blocked for various reasons including lack of standing and being untimely. Petitioner provides the learned legal analysis of Mario Apuzzo Esq., which proves Ankeny as well as the 14"^ Amendment and Wong Kim Ark do not make Obama a NATURAL Born citizen as Respondent Candidate Obama contends (see Exhibit 12). The Ankeny court only supports that he is "Born a Citizen" naturalized by the 14"^ Amendment at best. Also Ankeny did not rule that Candidate Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. In dicta,
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Vonage message for Charles Mallon from "Maxine ofthe CA SOS office on January 30, 2012:
the Indiana Appeals Court puts words in the mouths of the SCOTUS Justices. This absolutely has no control over California or Federal rulings, and in dissecting the Malihi Decision, appended thereafter (see Exhibit 13). that relies upon the Indiana decision. 36. That to the best of Petitioners knowledge based upon a recorded message
by January 30, 2012 the CA SOS had accepted the candidacy of Barack Obama
Page 19 of 25
1 2 3 4
notwithstanding anything else that has been complained of by Petitioners and others and the CA SOS is acting individually as a partisan Democrat who has instructed her agents to announce the CA SOS acceptance of the Respondent Candidacy and instructed employees to make the following statement by "Maxine" of the CA SOS calling
from: 19166537635(g)vm.vonage.com to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) received Mon, 30

6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Jan 2012 16:53:05 the recording of the message left Jan 30 2012 08:50:25 AM From: ST OF CA SECRET (19166537635) to: ChaHes Mallon (16197413139) as follows quote: "Hi Mr. Mallon, my name is Maxine and I'm returning your call to Secretary of State's office in Sacramento; and you wanted to find out what, ahh what if any action California might take regarding Georgia's ahh, the state of Georgia's challenge, to Barack Obama's eligibility ahh as a presidential candidate; and ahh as far as I understand our office and the state of California has no plans absent to date to take ahh , I believe the state recognizes him as a legitimate citizen, ahh I mean a candidate where that needs to qualifications and that is based on the Democratic party's ahh acceptance of his meeting those qualifications. The Party itself is to accept the candidate prior to nominating him so ahh our office accepts what the party ahh puts forth and has no further involvement, thank you for calling our office and have a great day ,bye bye.." 37. That the Georgia hearing that "Maxine" speaks of was held on January 26,
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia who on February 3, 2102 rendered a decision shown as Exhibit 13 now on appeal, and with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=player detailpaqe&v=Uuxqli CX-w 38. The Sworn Witness John Sampson as an expert witness retired INS False
Document Special Investigator at the January 26, 2012 hearing when asked if he would have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified
23 24 25 26 27 28
documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said "YES!" 39. That on February 28, 2012, Respondent Obama was added to the list of
"Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates" in California, notwithstanding his fraud http://www.vonage.com/vvv/index.php7message id = MTYxOTc0MTMxMzktMTMvNzkxM2OvNS0xMzI 30TOvMiI30TMvJGtsZ2ExJDop
Page 20 of 25
1 2 3 4
spoliation and concealment activities now under investigation in Arizona (see Exhibit 14). 40. That Petitioner for the foregoing reasons urges a continuance in the Prerogative Writ case, and were the judge not to rule in Petitioner's favor, on this Alternative Writ, Petitioner responds to CA SOS Bowen's demurrer main points as follows:
a. That to the extent that CA SOS has not investigated the charges of spoliation,
6 7 8 9
10 11
concealment, false swearing, fraud that are all matters required as a duty under California Election Code the Petition does not fail to State a Cause of Action against the Secretary of State who has acted individually ultra vires, in a partisan manner in violation of her oath of office and charge given her by the state of California. b. That there is no basis in law without sworn affidavits and substantive proof that a
12
candidate being submitted by the respective party has been duly vetted and meets
13 14 15 16 17 18
the criteria o f t h e eligibility requirements under the State and Federal constitutions and related law; and that prior precedents of the SCOTUS must be considered by this court, in that the Secretary of State has not done the minimum due diligence to protect both the interest of the State and the people who are to vote. The preponderance of the evidence provides that there is no legal duty to determine
19
whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as

20 21 22 23 24 25
President or at least defer to the Judiciary for a hearing and ruling on the merits has never been done to date until this cases filing being timely and properly supported. c. That Petitioner based upon the foregoing evidence and related law underlying the requirement for a prospective candidate and agents are culpable for misdirection
26
and concealment associated with the ongoing fraud to usurp the office of POTUS
27 28
Page 21 of 25
1 2
again is a compelling State interest in each State of the several States and District of Columbia that conduct the respective individual elections for their respective state representative to the Federal Executive and Congress according has been relegated by Congress for resolution in each State and Judiciary with original jurisdiction in a timely manner, notwithstanding the mirage of purported Federal remedy available as a discretionary option without force of law except in the respective State of the several States with original jurisdiction over elections.
9 ^ "
12
d. That Petitioners having filed January 6, 2012 are as timeless as any of the respective candidates and therefore Petitioners' standing has properly accrued for an evidentiary hearing on the merits with remedy fashioned based upon the authority granted to this Court, and that laches does not apply as relief is available,
13 14 15
e. Petitioners' complaint is not barred by the doctrine of laches when in fact the Determination to place the Democratic Candidate on the Primary ballot was only reached on February 28, 2012, and arbitrarily so, contrary to the duty to hear complaints and conduct investigation of ongoing crimes having accrued as done by Respondent Obama and his agents, including the California foreign entity of Obama for America are properly served and named have unclean hands, and have made admissions against interest regarding the so-called birth place and both CoLBs are
16 1'^
18 19 20 21 22
rightly to be deemed forgeries based upon the preponderance of evidence that based upon the Inherent duties of the CA SOS and It employees to administer the law were ignored as a matter of partisan bias in violation of their oath of office as public officers to serve and protect the sanctity of the ballot, and
23 24
26
f.
27 28
That the references made by Respondent Obama that the California Democratic Party must be added as a nunc pro tunc Respondent Defendant herein, as a matter
Page 22 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
of record is a compelling state interest for this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the evidence presented on an expedited schedule done by no later than March 26, 2012; as the Primary Ballot is to be printed starting March 29, 2012, and although the Democratic primary is moot, as there is only one candidate, nevertheless this matter must be resolved to provide the Democratic Party
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
opportunity to fill the vacancy with a legitimate eligible candidate or otherwise electors would be unassigned at the National convention from California in August. 41. That Petitioner as a matter of time as the essence requests a continuance of
the schedule for the prerogative writ petition, and were this alternative writ not accepted then let this affidavit stand as the response to the CA SOS and Obama demurrers. 42. That Petitioner has not requested this relieve previously as the new evidence
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
has just become available, and as such must be considered by this Court as a compelling reason for an expedited hearing on the merits of the forged document, false filing by the agents of Respondent Obama and the Partisan activities of a public officer(s) to assist in fraud and continued spoliation o f t h e public record find that Respondent Obama is not eligible to appear on the Democratic Primary ballot starting no later than March 29, 2012 for the schedule June 5, 2012 California primary elections. Those Respondents be ordered
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
to produce documents in response for an expedited hearing on the merits of the evidence. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons based upon new evidence submitted herein, and because there is no express provision of law that directs U.S. Congress and/or electors of the electoral college for California and/or a political party the duty to determine POTUS candidate Constitutional eligibility, the issue of Presidential eligibility remains a plenary
27 28
matter to be determined by the State Legislature under the U.S. Constitution Article 2
Page 23 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
Section 1 paragraph 2. Therefore, the State may not relinquish authority and responsibility it has for the SOS must determine ballot configuration and candidate access. If the State fails to act in this inherent State duty, the Court is empowered, otherwise with original jurisdiction to make a determination of qualification when there is sufficient evidence and proof of a fraud. That PETITIONERS' have demonstrated that questions of
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the SOS, chief elections officer of the State of California, and that and that this matter was improperly answered with a demurrer because PETITIONERS' have established that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates eligibility. However, since an actual conflict arises between this duty and the duty to simply place a national party candidate for President on the ballot, PETITIONER respectfully requests that this court grant this
13
Peremptory Writ for stay and interim discovery with Alternative writ of an expedited
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
hearing on the merits along with a continuance in scheduling in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Barack Obama et al. (Respondents) filed February 15, 2012, and there being sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation be deemed sufficient to also 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
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
February 16, 2012, and the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to the Petition subsequent to this Alternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presented; 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 until the Alternative Writ heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason that require an amended Petition filed nunc pro tunc.
28
Page 24 of 25
1 2 3 4 5
of Fundraising to bar access of ineligible declared candidate(s) for office of President of the United States (POTUS) at the 2012 election cycle with restraint of fund raising of such committees as a matter of imminent harm and irreparable injury with time as the essence, and I know its contents; the facts stated are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: B^^ parties, books and "* records, and personal knowledge except to those stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be true.
Sworn to before me T h i s V ^ day of March 2012 ^ Notary 'Oublic ^

1^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
ANGELA TETER ? COMM. # 1885285 \

N T R PUBUC -"CAUFORNIA ^ OA Y YUBA COUNTY 0 COMM. tXPIRES APRI18, 2014 ;*
Page 25 of 25
Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048
PAMELA BARNETT'S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING
Exhibit 1
DEBRA BOWEN | SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE OF C A L I F O R N I A | ELECTIONS
150011th Street, 5th Floor j Sacramento, CA 958141 Tel (916) 657-21661 Fax {916) 653-32141 www.sos.ca.gov
Summary of Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of
UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election
I.
QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-bom citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, 1 cl. 5
II. REQUIREMENTS There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election:
A.
by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or by circulating nomination petitions.
GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES
1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has detemiined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. 6041' Qther criteria the Secretary of State may use to detemiine who is a "generally-recognized" candidate includes, but is not limited to: a. Qualifying for federal matching funds, b. Appearing in presidential public opinion polls, candidates' forums, or debates, c. Being on other states' primary ballots as a presidential candidate, d. Actively campaigning in Califomia for the presidency, e. Having a campaign office in California, and f Advice and input from the chairs of the respective state parties. 2. Between January 7, 2012* (E-150) and IVlarch 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State will publicly announce this determination. 6041
All code references arc to thc Califomia Elections Code unless otherwise stated. 09/30/2011
Qualifications and Requiremenls Presidential Nomination Democratic Party June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election
Page 2
3. The last day a candidate may withdraw from the list of candidates to be certified by the Secretary of State is March 29, 2012 (E-68). 6042, 6043
B. CIRCULATION OF NOMINATION PETITIONS FOR CANDIDATES NOT SELECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OR UNCOMMITTED DELEGATIONS
1. Any candidate not selected by the Secretary of State or any uncommitted delegation desiring to be placed on the presidential primary election ballot shall have nomination papers circulated on behalf of the candidacy. 6061 2. To qualify for placement on the Presidential Primary Election ballot, the nomination papers of the candidate or uncommitted delegation must be signed by voters who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party equal in number to not less than one percent or 500, whichever is fewer, in each congressional district of the number of persons who have selected a preference with the Democratic Party in the Report of Registration issued by the Secretary of State on January 22, 2012* (E-135). 6061 3. Each signer of a nomination paper may sign only one paper. The signer shall print his or her name, indicate his or her place of residence, and declare his or her intention to support the candidate or delegation named on the nomination paper. 6104 4. Each section of the nomination paper shall be delivered to the elections official of the county where the petition was circulated. 6101 5. The period for circulating the nominating petitions is January 27, 2012 (E-130) through March 24, 2012* (E-73). 6101, 6122 6. The last day to file nomination papers with the county elections official is March 24, 2012* (E-73). 6122 7. No later than March 29, 2012 (E-68), the Secretary of State shall prepare a certified list containing the name of each candidate who is entitled to be voted for on the ballot at the Presidential Primary Elecdon, and the name of each chairperson of a steering committee of an uncommitted delegation who is to be voted for on the same ballot. 6180
*Asterisked dates indicate that the date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday; if the date is also a deadline, in mosl cases, il will move forward lo the nexl business day. 15
09/30/2011
Qualifications and Requirements Presidential Nomination Democratic Party June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Eleciion
Page 3
III. APPOINTMENT OF STEERING COMMITTEES A. Each unselected candidate and each group proposing an uncommitted delegation is required to appoint a seven-member steering committee and shall appoint one of the members to serve as chairperson. 6080 B. The chairperson of the steering committee, no later than March 15, 2012 (E-82), shall file with the Secretary of State a statement containing the names and addresses of the members of the committee. 6081 C. Each steering committee shall be responsible for the circulation of nomination papers of unselected candidates and groups proposing uncommitted delegations. 6082 IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. The Califomia Elections Code contains various requirements that rnust be met by anyone planning to run as a presidendal candidate for the Democratic Party. Prospective candidates and delegates should review these laws well in advance of the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election. For further information, the candidate is advised to consult California Elections Code section 6000, et seq. This code is available on the Internet at the Legislative Counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. B. Prospective candidates and delegates should contact the Califomia Democratic Party at 1401 21^' St., #200, Sacramento, Califomia, 95811, for additional duties and responsibilities not specified in the Elections Code or items not filed with either the Secretary of State or county elections officials. C. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office does not provide fomis for presidential candidates. D. Because ofthe requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, As Amended, a presidential candidate should contact the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20463, or call toll-free (800) 424-9530 for a copy ofthe Act, related regulations giving the filing requirements for reporting campaign contributions, and the forms on which to file. E. No filing fee shall be required from any person in order to file nomination papers. IMPORTANT NQTICE This information sheet of presidential candidate qualifications and requirements is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation, or rule. In case of conflict, the law, regulation, or rule will apply. The candidate should obtain the most up-to-date information available because of possible changes in law. 6146
09/30/2011
Exhibit 2
Maricopa County SherifTs Office Joe Arpaio, Sheriff
SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Armio msmcts fomm
March 1,2012
(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told reporters, "A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama's longform birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computergenerated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public." This is the principle preliminary fmding of a six-month on-going Sheriffs Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president. 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 govemmental 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:.
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: MediiaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
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 bom outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on intemational flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. 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 were these immigration cards cannot be found.
When and Why SherifTs investisators became involved In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this investigation. The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his "Cold Case Posse" at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of documents, and took numerous swom statements from witnesses around the world.
Additional findings by investigators
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
Suspecting that the long forni birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case. Sheriffs Investigator Mike Zullo says, "We have also determined during the course of our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their possession." Sheriff Arpaio added, "A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand more about the creation ofthe alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to detemiine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it." The Matter of the Selective Service Resistration Card Sheriffs Investigators were then led to investigate President's Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980. Investigators compared Obama's card to others filled out in same year and to at least two cards filled out in the same local. The year stamp that is used on selective sei'vice registration cards should include all four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with selective service. However, investigators note that Obama's registration card is highly unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, "80" which appears to be an inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.
Investisators use video presentations to back up the evidence The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: l\/lediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.
They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan ofthe paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized. Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. "The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide govemment authentication to the document itself," Zullo said." If the Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery." "As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the President can easily put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has." Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. "Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President was bom in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Arpaio said.
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081 Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
Conclusive remarks Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by suggesfing a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigafion be forwarded to his office. " I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for answers and we intend to move forward with this investigafion in pursuit of those answers, hopefully with the cooperafion of all parties involved," Arpaio said.
Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=ID KfcmG9gs http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=S4QWKxKSIHc http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=izDWmXNBvto http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=vQ0Wvp91JXg http://www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=3S60 AjlinS
6. http.//www.voutube.com/watch?feature=plaver embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8 Y
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
| 3 MCSO: Press Rdesses MaufLj FirefoT^ Eile Edit f ^ 5iew History Bookmarks Jooli tic'P . > 4H^k ^ft" DollVoutse...|BDuiihaiTiPa-|u!UniredSlate...|EicRS-Congr... | CA Codes (.- | CjIKomn C... | "1 CAL ElEC..- | ' T '-^ G \ 1 1 ' ^ ' (51663 unread) - pb.re... Latest Headlines The Attomey Regisuat-. E J Hawaii guv suddenly " Or. Otiy Taiu Esquire Q Inbox 48294 No. COaiiiT] MrKinney v... | G3 Infam (4303... \ P| # 0 O
(59682 ume... [
J Pjintut Seb... | Q MCSO P... |
' MARAZEBE.. [ T ' ShiflnlMsI|
C J ^.v.v.mcso.org Presjlelcjse.* Most Visited J 3 Video I Templatic Getting Started Q
2012 catifornia democratic (Urtycandidate
Obama State Ballot Ch...
3/12/2012 3/9/2012 3/9/2012 3/8/2012 3/1/2012 3/1/2013 2/26/2012 2/21/2012 2/10/2012 2/9/2012 2/6/2012 1/27/2012 1/17/2012
X Find: turch 4' tjcd ^
O g p u t i e s Raiii C o c k f i g h t In Progress s h e r i f f ' s S o c i a l Meciia S i t e s R e a c h 2 0 0 - T h o t j s a n d F r i e n d s Sheriff's Deoutv Arrested Sheriff Aroaio Writes to Craioslist T H E MARA 2 E B E S T REPORT SHFRIFF A R P A l f l RFI F A S F * ; PRFI IMTNARY F I M n i N R S f l N DRAMA BIRTH C F R T I F I C A T F I N M A T E S S E R V I N G - T I M E I N S H E R I F F ' S T E N T S WEARING SOO.ODO MARK Update Aroaio Portland Death T h r e a t Illegal Aliens F o u g h t W i t h Deputies . SHERIFF ARPAIO C O N T I N U E S I=1GHT A G A I N S T ILLEGAL I M M I G R A T I O N
Statenient
O b a m a F a n a t i c T h r e a t e n s T o Kill S h e r i f f A r o a i o A t t o r n e v s for Aroaio Respond
te-/ious i i " Highlight 11 _i Mat^hcase
qigg)l|r^l^wlgi^!
Exhibit 3
K E N BENNETT
SECRETAF Y OF STATE OFADRIZONA
The foregomg document Is a complete, true and correct copy ofthe document filed witlh the Secretary of State.
Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State
Date
V- n-
State Capitol: 1700 W Washington Street, 7'" Floor Phoenix, AZ 8:5007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-8683 Fax (602) 542-6172
RECEIVED
STATE OF ARIZONA
SECREmRY OF S A E TT 13 PH 3'01
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
07 PRESIDENTIAL P R E F E R E N C E ELECTION 2 0 OEd CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER (A,R.S. 16-:!42)
You are hereby notified that I,
B a r a c k Qbama Party, at the Presidential Preference Election
am seeking nonnination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the
Democratic
to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.
I am a natural bom citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.
50if6 South Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, IL 60615

Candidate's actual residence address or description of piase of residence (city or town)
(zip)
Obama for America, 233 North Michi.gan Avenue, 11th Floor, Chicagg^ÎL.
Candidate's Post Office Address (city or town)
Candidate's Arizona committee information: Chaimnan's Name
Don Bivens 2910 North Centra,! Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85012
Address (number and street) Telephone 602-298-if200 (city or town) (zip)
^RECEIVED
SECRETARY OF STATE lam
Q 1 am not
)
a registered voter In the state in which I resii )
13 PM3J0I
EJlam
Q I am not
)
)
a member ofthe political party from which I am running as a candidate for the office .lof President of the United Stales.
I do solemnly swear (or affinn) that all the infwmation in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affinn) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for pte'cing my name on its PresiiJfential Preference Election ballot I ) /
SubscnTjed AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this
CommemsctMi) ot Miieinta .Cmama^n EWi W t gj, g ] 0 o O>

IVIy Commission Expires: ''3'" (Seal) I '2-0 10
Fiie with: Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Dh^lsion 1700 West Washington Street, T"" Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Office Revision 8/21/2007
Exhibit 4
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source file was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure 2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed. The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaiibut this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document file. This would account for the transformation of a document containing different color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off). There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White Houseit was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points: 3 Figuire II: PDF file released from White House Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan) not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout. Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration.This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama's PDF document. Layers: A normal scan is a flat file and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer. Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the file, rotated, and resized. Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation. Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in final steps.
I T A T I Of
HAWAII
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTM FIU ^ 151 BRC AAK HUSSEIH
MATMI>.T W HIALTH lôl 1 ORAKA, : i
^ri,-.c-.j--u
I I I,,r-l
J ,
,,
i-fTl'-t'n
:1
iBplfllanl l U U r R l t j .1 Oynacological Ho8plt*l | -tcjirj;=r^nit^CkTf;=rs"i^ ' f c - t c i j - RonololD : Oahv 6085 KalanlKDsois Hl(^7
JjSh'^'n* jTrTs-i'-jt^'-ICCTSS; | HonololDt H m j . l
BAHACS
[QI5SS1N
ce -a 15 V u 31
(io J....
. wr^Ssi
Green safety paper background

( > r T y TWJ O A T B I * COffT OB AB3TMC1 0 * m K O T O O "
CUJ^'-V, I.
O
STATE R E O i S n U A
' j T A l E
or
HAWAII
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

NUUIIB 1 3 1 f f r p r ur p r i u ) Ih
' " c i " " i nc'^*I7"
3
O A< . B :A
itaf
TT'^l.nl** n m
^1
HU3H3!tl
- 3 1 .1.
ru. Unh
ri
Fî
i t i ^ r t , til S a n
Ti.. RMh
Kaio
1 IIJ, I m
r-hCj r,.,i,.nl i . i D fa t'onolulu
j..inl''-
August
bb. Ittaarf
igbl
Ml, ^ r i t i
I 7:2^ P.M.
Oohu
B4. r> l * W f r f ll(r<h 1 Tk. klaaJ t l lOUHtJ t a i l i i H > I n i ' l f n I.aann7
KnplolanL M a t e n i l t ^ & Oynecoloîcol H o s p i t n l

1 M M h r f C I t / i t v a M H m l L a t u k
Honolulu
Ii. llfulAîlm
Oahu
T>. I< K i i i i l a r .
Hotiolulu,
Kavtill
60S5
"
KU33EIH OBAXA
C n w p } la. hnit
bi<U> O t t < t T A Mtlti
U>ii.l
Q 3 3
V
,
I.
llu
Afrlorji
Itk. k l a d U l l i l M n . ar Isduitr;
Id.
*r
I*IWT
1 >.
Dirlkilifr IWM. I I H
25
iJ. riillMFMn.>>
tcnyo,
East
Africa Ai:il
Siudent
University u.
M af U H W >
lb.
thrlhfI K I l U i a , I M
CKn
rr*
al Uvtayaliaa Omilrfa
lhai>
t:k.
i.t
'k.rf
18
1 nnir; if>M i h l i . i r i t > h n l 1 m i
V i c n l t o , nannaa
.i.t(il tub.
UM.
.f
i M i . ^ r , HtlU
p.
7-<:/'
. . . U M I * . .
t k . . f b r > " > ' 7 <> I h l . * _ h a n tlk'* tv k l H II III *. 111.
.ii:g
M
SianslBK W LKII iiatiw > ^
k.
(hi.
t ) > i r 4 w p * l h t l j H i d l U t , Jl.
Die -?i 1:61
ID
A m t i i a 4 h. tlf.
- s ISSI
t.*.'v:
.........
Blue background color and no safety paper
I CEiniF^ IWS IS THtlE COPY AQSTRACT c ? n F c o c n O H . a c til

I I A M A I ) S T A T L GCPAPTMC*1T OF H E U T . .
Safety paper background with a gray/blue color
C T A m KEGISTTÂft
. --ift >8J!
Figure 2:
A printout was given to AP which they scanned
Figure 3:
Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA; LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Tlh@ CIR AirgtLomemits: Mtt a FactoirS
IT* Wt y " Owimwj gti'wna
'<zn latrt
A j ^ r t vy*wa tit.ji
J ri
: ^)
-J
Ul
4 ^ Ite) :
Search word in Find box
OCRwhich stands for Optical Character Recognitior)will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text. After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not. Additionally, ifthe PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and ifthe text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found. Figure 4 shows the keyword "t/Ve" typed in the FIND box, and even though the word "Live" exists in the Certificate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that "no mofches were founc/." When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama's PDF file does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the DocumenfPropert/es dialog box. Font-based text can be created after a file has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance ofthe characters in the conversion from image to text. Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box. Figure 7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword "Live" typed in the FIND box. The word "Live" is found and highlighted within the Certificate of Live Birth title.
' V DUVI fri'.(K.1lr i c q fk.1>nptlt . AilrOr A t U l l i t t n i l
Ma " M M
r'~i
No text found In file
i.,î|t.(.'
OMIU
'OB} Ktltnlaiaet* tlgsnT
Ihxillsia, UnAlt
/ 1
Figure 4 :
Search for text is not recognizedNo OCR applied
..:ivft
Document Font Properties of original PDF file
Figure 5:
Font Properties of Obama's PDF file
-J <? ^
I* u
- ui . ^ - ta
'^DJ
Search word In Find box Document Font Properties after OCR Text Recognition
AcMtMltMrwTl^
Text found In OCR file
CCXTIFICATI Of L t V i p i K T H
fit
lORtl
_______
Kmaluln lanl<ila.it hAtarniir * aji-.>lc|lc*l t b * | i i i a l 'kmlulu _ _ 0*P.u LX'^'S^""" llMolblu. H M A U Cum
Fogure 6:
Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition
Figure 7:
Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied
REPORT

DmifirodlycftDoini to [Bask Terms
[ Paint strokesno noise )
Page 3 of 10
Let's briefly examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap N o i s e V No N o i s e Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image. In contrast. Figure 8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation. Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do nof conro/n noise. All neighboring pixels for the sample paint strokes in Figure 8 are solid in color with no variationnot even thes//g/itesf of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professional will need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise filter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF file. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document. B i t m a p (or A l i a s i n g ) v A n t i - a l i a s i n g
Figure 8:
Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise
aliased (bitmap)
a
anti-aliased
a
Figure 9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing
( Bitmap edges are Jagged ) ( Antl-allased edges are smootfi J
Figure 9 offers a visual explanation of aliasing [or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors ofthe pixels at the boundary edges. Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanningor not at all. Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with image manipulation.The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise. A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white imageno color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or offwhite or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn't be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone valuesnot black or grayscale.
Figure 10:
Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge
REPORT

Scanner Chromatic Aberration
^ Cool blue color at the upper edges J
What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when different wavelengths of light are refracted differently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted differently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularly with text) compared to the opposite side ofthe contrasting color. In simpler terms. Figure 11 is an example of Chromot/c/lberrof/on in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges ofthe text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a high zoom level in color scans such as the AP version of Obama's BCbut this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obama's PDF released by the White House. Because the AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the AP did receive a printed hard copy ofthe BC from the White House and scanned whatever was presented to them. AP did not do anything wrong. They simply scanned what was handed to them. It's important to note that the AP version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background.This sudden difference in background color/pattern is another inconsistency that could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White Housebut this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured file.
Figure
11:
Scanned text and Chromatic
Aberration
(T]rp or print
Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency in textand no cfiromatic aberration
BMACK
Figure 12:
D.O. Midwift U l yi Othe er
Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level
Applying the Terms Reviewed

A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specific areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts. Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter "R" mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12.The white halo effect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the official stamp text"TXE" instead of "THE." While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds significantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that affect both sides of the "H"character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an "X."The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the"Alvin"signature that has been referred to as a "happy face." Figure 14 offers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka's stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no "happy face" markings in the "Alvin" signature. The "Ph." spacing between the "P" and "h" is different in both signature images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layerno signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be reflected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texturethe ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14is absent from the Obama PDF.
Color variation evidence of manipulation j
Alvin's signature suddenly develops a smiley face ( Spelling error on stamp ) [ Green text color values ]
1 CERTIFY THIS IS|A TRUE COPY OR / ABSTRACT O? T^B RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
I ! i
OJj^X
Figure 1 3 :
No spelling error
G-
?V..ji
STATE REGISTRAR
Examples of text inconsistencies
ABSTRACT Of- Ti:' Pt:C J W C n .V ;; ^ THE HAWAII STATt- D^.^.^P.T1i ^; illV' i^'? .'1
I Alvin's signature I I witfiout smiley face? j
Figure
14:
http://factcheck.ora/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM B\RTH CERTIFICATE
Layer 1 includes the foilovKlng sub-layers:
.w.--J[ Outside border edge boundary path

.Cl .....
Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama's PDF.The layers in Obama's PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation. A simple definition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce file size.
..
One flat image layer
'^.^J^f'^.^.:'-( One flat image | > ^ ' ^ -"'-^*-
- S ^ ' : ' ? ! OneLlnli 1 r " -'"f^^ ; r '
As statedoptimization can cause layersbut in the case of optimization; the process of how the document is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms.Thus, there are certain predictable patterns. Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: ffasfer-basedand Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for p;xe/-bosec/which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based programmeaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates differently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as pathsthe mathematical equations that define the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to define the outer boundary border of that object.This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image). The AP file version of Obama's PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:
( Outside border Path )
>i
Figure 15:
Normal one-layer scan document behavior
{ Clipping Path layer ")
[ IVIultiple sub-layers
IT-.-- "T: "'".-'

[ Outside border path ^t> ( Clipping Path ( Multiple linl<s
I
^
3 3
A boundary edge Paththe blue border surrounding the image And the flattened Image
Fogyire 16:
Multiple layers and links in Obama's PDF
1 " ^ One bitmap sub-layer at top
Figure 16 shows a crucial difference in the number of layers displayed in Obama's PDF file (compared to the AP file): Obama's PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top ofthe sub-layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location ofthe clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It's presence within the file and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also reflects image manipulation. Another crucial difference in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroW box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to offer a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view).
S$iS'i^l..
Siiir' ^j!^x:ii^ 7~.ri..
Huge amount of linl(s )
ii;*'.ri'"
Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles. Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; but the reverse is true in Obama's PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.
[ Insane number of color sub-layers ] >
Figure 17:
AP layers and links after optimization is applied
REPORT

[ visibility icon )
Tlh CDoppoinig W\mh. [PaSlh

Let's return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. Jhe term mask refers to defining parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape can be used as a clipping pathin this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure 18 defines an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefit derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide different parts ofthe artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized fileit will never hide information. Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is first openedall other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path.To move and see these objects separatelythe clipping mask group needs to be releasedor ungrouped. Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask offers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundaryproofof image manipulation.
i n
u
( Clipping Path ^ |
, . . . r i ::^w--J=i?=^
fc " v J ' i
( Collapsed Icon
Figure 18:
Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask

I
--
( Release Clipping Mask Group
r
'II!
[
y
Expand icon J
( Clipping Path
^îii:
^^'rf
"^"WW-
Da n n D cnni " S
Figure 19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed
[ Layer visibility on )
( First link actively selected J -
Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a report that examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indications of image manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document. At first glance these layers appear to be emptybut this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer). This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation. Tom Harrison offers the following analogy in his report:Try to have someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football revealed? Of course not. However, ifa picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken ofthe person, layers can be used to"hide"the picture of the football behind the person (using a program like Photoshop). By placing the picture of a person on a layer "in front of"or on topof the layer containing the football in the documentthe football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer of the person is turned off. Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure 20a close-up view to reveal numerous white pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background pattern another indication that the white pixels are not a normal part of the background pattern. Figure 21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white pixel dots).To paraphrase Mr. Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterrupted safety paper pattern under another object (such as the random white dots).
[ Layer object path ] (White pixels display ) ^
[ Top layer selected]
-igure 20:
(
Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels

) ( Layer visibility off )
First link deselected
( Layer object path turned off ] White pixels disappear: Pattern pixels uninterrupted
Figure 2 1 :
Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below
REPORT

ta.u-.t
')3 UliiiLiMtia WtC-t
( Selected active links
ri[ Date stamp Certification s t a m p )
Figure 2 2 :
Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps
The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or off) independently of surrounding image layered partsthus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certification stamp on separate layersto move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 22-24 demonstrate how objects can be moved around independently.The Obama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the AP optimization layer results for the same information in Figures 2 5 26. The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation. The date stamp and certification stamp are the selected layers in Figure 22.The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects.
31
^f7*>
Afnu
Etuti
V|;ii:u,
ie*u
-.i y t
I . - . - : r - -"'^'7!-.- _ .
..
Date & certification stamps moved
Figure 2 3 :
Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps ^ T , rJ:^:^^SU,^JS:;j6iias;=-~^ 2
Figure 23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved independent ofthe background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certification stamp is completely and independently separated onto its own layer.The same is true ofthe date stamp. This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation in which each of these items can be manipulated independently ofthe surrounding background layer. This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements. Figure 24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independentiy from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer.Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color displayed in the absence of pattern will be white. AuttonnicDitDorD v iViamiuall iVlaniipyllatioini Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP file opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP file was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP file displays a multitude of layers. Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list. This top text layer is turned off in Figure 25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety ofthe many multi-color layers in the list that still have their visibility turned on in Figure 25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and optimization fails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layernor is there a different layer for the date textand again, no clean and complete separation. Figure 26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layer's visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how there's no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layersthe machine is deciding based on an automated process.
[ Background selected & moved J
Figure 2 4 :
Background layer with white halos can also move

I "
Bottom layers selectedtext layer off
Figure 2 5 :
Optimized lacks the human element in layering
Text layer onone background layer off )
1 I
--"TBU'TMitTiWrr-iip-. tttivfne'vt'.mnHiti
re 2 6 :
Text layer turned on and one background layer off
REPORT

L. la r! r-
Wlhote Inlal] Cir@attoini

The white halo effect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, let's address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function ofa selection created around all the textbefore filling the background layer with a green safety pattern. The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer i/v/fhoutany selectionthus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layerwithout a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo effect was generated either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. As might be expected, the creation ofa background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures. Figure 27 shows the demonstration file set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF file was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop file on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently filled with white). When working in a graphic program, ifyou want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. Ifa selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is first selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection of7/y. In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnailin this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text.The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28). The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2pixels. The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fill to the surrounding background areanot the surrounding fexf area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversedalso known as inverseto ensure the pattern will fill everything on the background layer except the text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fill with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes ofthis demonstration, the next step will define a safety paper pattern and fill the background layer using the current active selection.
( Top layer: Certification stamp text
I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPV OR ABSTRACT O? TXE RECORD ON R L E IM THE HAWAII STATE OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE l&GISTRAR
( Bottom layer: White background ]
Figure 2 7 :
A two-layer stamp text file created to demonstrate
[ Ctrl+clIck on layer t h u m b s
Iff^rTRUe'COPY OR TKE RECORD ON FILE IN ATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE REGISTOAR
( Text Is selected
Figure 2 8 :
A text selection created and selection expanded
( Expand Selection dialog box~)
t:|="^>
<
'T
I.-;.-.
I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OP TXE RECORD ON FILE IH THE HAWAII STATE OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE REGISTRAR
Figure 2 9 :
Expand Selection optionexpanded 2 pixels
[ Selection Inverse o p t i o n
I W H O ^
At-(M'*
ISATRUeCOPYOR TXE RECORD ON FILE IH ATE OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
B:
STATC rtECISTRAR
( Text selection expanded by 2 pixels ]
Figure 3 0 :
Next the selection needs to be inversed
REPORT

Safety Paper Creatoon
Or*>
^ Selection of a sample pattern area
On*) M O
In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be filled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defined as a fill option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to define it as a patternbut a pattern can be easily defined from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheelthe current Obama PDF file will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion ofthe pattern that will t/7e easilywhich means that when the selected area is filled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlesslywithout any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Define Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu.The Obama PDF file is closed and no longer needed. Back to the demonstration file shown in Figure 32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu. In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33.
[ Define the selection as a pattern j PTU DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
nJ"
61
10611
Figure 3 1 :
Selection used to define a pattern
Fill option chosen J S is A TRUE COPY OR }p V^B RECORD ON HLE !H STATE OEPAKTMENT OF HEALTH } j Bacl<ground layer active
The safety paper pattern defined earlier in Figure 31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure 34. Click OK to complete the effect. The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text. In Figure 36the Stamp Text layer's visibility is turned off, and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D).The white halo effect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to read the explanation. In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background.This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an official document.
Ctkt
^TATE (REGISTRAR
f -
<'!
[ Selection inversed J 1
jure 32:
Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box
( Pattern Fill option chosen
ICERTiFVTHISiS ATRIM ABSTRACT OP TXE PEC( THE HAWAII STATE DEP/
E:
I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPV OR ABSTRACT OP TXE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
rET
STATE I<EG|STT<AR
STATE REGISTRAR
Bacl(g round contains pattern fill
Figure 3 3 :
The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box
Figure 3 5 :
The pattern fills the selection area
Custom Pattern chosen
(~Stamp Text visibility off
ICERTipyTHISIS ATRU| Af3StRACT0CTXEBEC( t D THE HAWAII STATE OEPy ^
[ White halo effect f
jre 34:
The defined pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list
Figure 3 6 :
Turn off the text layer: White halo effect is displayed
REPORT
JTATE or
HAWAII
m,
DCPAOTMIiHT Of
nr-MM ol. A10611
HEALTH
7^
c*ii/ n t . i >.
( T r v w tMt
lb.
MUaim ttmmm
OBAXA, J l
1 >"
1^1. thU Quth
Halo
' :i^..a
Iônolulu
f | X . Ckild
ttmtm
lUnV
Oaho t^'lJS
< townlj Mil itmr mr Vntttgn Cmanv
The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitudeof ways to accomplish the same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the definitive method is nof the main point. The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document? But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any official document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo. As previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master file exists as a source file. What is meant by a master file? A master file is a file in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and information than seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers). For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements merged onto that layer. In the master file version, the text still remains on a separate layerNOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master file also contains the short form certificate layers {which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the file). Figure 37 and Figure 38 demonstrate that the AP version ofthe long form certificate contains a different set of problems as follows: 3 3 A sudden shift to a different background Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edgebut not in the document background Short form embedded into the printoutFigure 38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily
KiqloJ.flni Hflterrlty
r*ar M x l M r d r j ,
tt Oynsool glcnJ ^"P^^nl

vr K s ^ L w a
Honoltjlu 608$ IlaLiiiiiaQaolf Forgot to t u r n off a short form layer

Ymtl of I t f '
Hotmlulu, KcwflH.
Ar rlcr.n
K i n d W U u i n r H >r l a d u i l r r
25
TJ: I
|tenya, Eaa^ Africa

lUrhfF Umhflmn (MIM. I W
y
t4.
Univoraity
B al MnkcT
l a l l MiMrH.îriif W
Coccp&ian
ar . r WaiWt| Ib. H rc.(i " T T 7
IS
v?ichito> f-onnaa
Intr W
Ompvin.
UvFti^ P n p i w j
17k.
I.Ml U'artfil
IICPC
UM* Bjpta4btLvJHr(, J|,
sicnrtatt W U c i l
luirt
1.1 -.SI55I
U. tMdk t k U r i d n i i a ar Aluialaa
Forgot to t u r n off safety-paper layer in manufactured shadow
Baclcground color magically shifts to blue
I CE.1T1Pf r w a ts A IRUE COPV 0 1 * 1 3 1 I ; A C T C ? I X ^ RFCOROoii F a n
APR I S
soil
57An; REOISTKAB
Figure 3 7 :
Some extra reinnants visible in the AP version
W or HAWAII

Ik UUdlaKaau
DEPAHTMINT or HUUIH
,5,
lr.
.61 10641
Cl Uia*
3
/
BARACK
Ba ^ HiOa ^ I . TVh mnh -V ^ *. IfcmHlJ .TVtnD
HUSBEaK
Twja w T y c * . S.. ^ riîh Atigugt
[tA.
OBAHA, I I
timf 4 .
IIWKI
Ymr 19tl
M.
Uwr
Tri,U.n| u G ' l - J p
1 , J D I'i^
I I t H
P.H.
Honolulu :* iopijaljmi. Maternity DTTiccolo^^cal Hospital

'mt Untheri atj,Tww f i n JaArlal rilMf<rt
Oalra_ L>.P
Honolulu 6085 KolsjilanDcf

^1, Wn<<lla;IMni
Enhancement applied to display short form elements
3 " n
Tf.
t i BHiibam m a.fana.er
mkm
25
rail
mm
" Studoit
r mf
rnhtr
Ai'rJ.dcn
Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur ifthe source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result of a manufactured source filein which layers from a master file were turned off or mistakenly left on.
Ecpyg, Eflflt Afrloa r

N n a c mf K a l k f i
gTAgiST
AKH Wlcblta, ttgriBao ^"
nQ - 8 u
I'ta, M k m
31.. win^tfC 'J*^ '.|-,| Yf^T ' r ^ ^ T | = f f ^ ^ K ^ 3 ^ 4 ^ ^ j r M M J ^ ] ^ J | j ^ ^
far I h l i j a d n i l n ( AKrjdlM
Figure 3 8 :
Enhancement applied to easily see short form
Exhibit 5
^ T A T E OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
L
rgj^
151
(Type or print) lb. Middle Nmme lie.
61
LaMl fimmc
10611
sC Hour /
Oilld'* F l " ' N'me
BARACK
3. T h U Birth V ^ TriplclQ 4. SionleE? TwinD
HUSSEIN
If TwCa o r T r i p l e t , Waa C h i l d B o m
OBAMA, I I
u.
BIrtb Date Month D.J Year
{' Male
IMD
2ndD
SrdD
August
^.
1961
7i2A POM.
Konolulu
Name o i HoapllaS or Inctltutlon ( I f nol In hoipltal or inititution, give itrcel addrcas) 6d.
Oahu
I l Place of Birth Intkla Qty or Town U m i t . r If njk |iTe Judicial diilricl YeiE WoD Tel County and State or Forcl|pi Country
Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital

Ufual Rctldenec of Mother: Qly. Town or Rural Location Tb. bland
Honolulu
7d. Street Addrcaa
Oahii
Te!
Honolulu, Hawaii
Ia Reaidenee Inilde Q l y or Town U m l t i t > judicial dialrici e ir n. Yea 7g. I ResUcnce on Farm or Plantation f
6085 Kalanianaole Highway

jtr'
1
Mother'* Mailing Addreu
1 f 8., ClO.
Y..D
F'ull IVanie of Father 9. Race of Falher
N0 O9
> 'i : '
f"' BARACK
Age of Kether 11.
HUSSEIN
Birlhplore (fthnd, Sntt or Forattn Couniry) 12a.
OA A BM
Usnal Occupation 12b.
African
Kind of Buaineaa or Induslry
;
fl3. MS.
25 STANLEY
tenya. East A f r i c a ANN
Student
li.
University
Race of Mother
Full Maiden Plame of Mother
DNA UHM None

^ Pare'Bg or Other Informant ^
Caucaaian
0 IBb. I9b,
Age of Mother 16a
BIrthplaee (liland. SUM or Forcifn Counir}'
l^pe of' Occupation OutUdc Home During Prcgnancj ITb.
Date Laat Worked
18
^ 3
Wichita, tânaae
Attendanl
I certify thai the above alaled USa. ^Stgn^lure In/ormalion ia Irue and correct 10 the beal of my knowledge. I9a. Signature I hereby eerilfy thai ihi* child waa born alWc on lhe dale and hour Dated above.
Parent Other
Date of SIfnature
>^'^^^ J:^ZZL^ ( ^ A ^
Signature of Local Regittrar
20. Dale Accepted by Local Reg. 21.
M.D, D.O. Midwife Other 22.
Dale of Si(nature
accepted bjr Reg. General
A G - 8 1B U 91
23. Evidence for Delayed Rling or Alteration
I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OP TXE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
APR 2 5.2011
STATE REGISTRAR
Exhibit 6
Get Email Updates |
Contact Us
Home Briefing Room Press
Briefings
Search WhiteHouse.gov
Senrch
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release April 27, 2011
2012 STATE ../>/f U N I O N
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 8:48 A.M. EDT MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thanl< you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pteiffer, the President's Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President's White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President's long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President's counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a liltle of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President's birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President's campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of
B L O G POSTS O N T H I S I S S U E
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
Call wiXh President Karzai Following the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached out to President Karzai Sunday following the reported killing and sounding of Afghan civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT
From the Archives: Tsunami Ln Japan
Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the President's website in 2008 is his birlh certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth ceriificate. It is the birth certificate Ihey take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver's license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn't spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -0 When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT
Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future

Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.
VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why the extraordinary steps we had lo take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to - essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right afler the Republicans released their budget framework and the Presidenl released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we're going to take, how we're doing to deal with very important issues like education. Medicare, how we're going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should - that's the debate we should be having yet.
Facebook Twitter Flickr Google-i-
YouTube Vimeo ITunes LInkedIn
Whal was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to lalk about their budget plans - including the President - they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction. That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii lo release the long-form certificate, which is nol something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term - it would have been in his ~ probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this. And now I'll have Bob explain that, and then we'll take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to - sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement aboul this - not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know. MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point aboul what this debate says about our politics. Go ahead. Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday ~ counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President's written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request ~ written, signed request - along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.
The department, as I understood it, afler reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificale could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th - the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel's letter. MR. PFEIFFER: Well be happy to take some questions. Q I guess I just want to make sure that we're clear on this. Even though this one says "certificate of live birth" on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we've seen? MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.
Okay.
MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to - that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both ~ the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is whal is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see - and Bob can walk you through it ~ it contains some additional informalion that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign. If you could just explain the difference.
MR. BAUER: There's a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that's in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also - that is to say, the original birth certificate - it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information that's required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that's a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that's legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
MR. BAUER: That's correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii. Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that
prompted you to issue this? MR. BAUER: I'll let D a n MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.) I don't think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved ~ for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as I said earlier, it probably would have been - a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate.
particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so that's why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this ~ it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact. Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room. Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years? MR. PFEIFFER: There has been - no one that I can recall actually asked us to - we were asked lo release the President's birth ceriificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one - it never ~ up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn't the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn't been unlil - I mean. Jay was asked about this yesterday 0 When you say that, you mean certification - you released the certification?
MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants - requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver's license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that's what that is. And we released that. And that's what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He'll talk to you more about his thinking on that. Q And this is going to sound - I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to - remain unconvinced. They're going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any - (laughter.) Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will - the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a - what they have on file. As Bob said, it's in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And you'll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It's happening here in this room; it's happening on all of the networks. And it's something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who's actually oul trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whelher there's still - there will be some who still have a different - have a conspiracy about this. Q You've got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical -
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one. 0 You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you 0 Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. 0 Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?
MR. PFEIFFER: The President ~ this in itself - when you hear the President I think you'll understand the point he's making. That will be in not too long. 0 Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let's just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based ~ in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the MR. PFEIFFER: Let's be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn't an issue. So it wasn't like - let's be very clear. We were asked for the President's birth certificate In 2008; we released the President's birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.
And so there hasn't been a discussion about this other document for years. It's only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a - this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing. It's not just a sideshow for him; it's a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this. 0 Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of - sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he's the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with? MR. PFEIFFER: It's not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They'll have to answer that for themselves. 0 How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?
MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign. 0 Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD -
MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have - but you'll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this - questions about personnel tomorrow. Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not ~ and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I undersiand. But was there debate about whelher or not this was worthy of the White House? MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who ~ we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn't a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to - and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there's an important point to be made here. Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he's not letting his
White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you. Bill. (Laughter.) Q I mean, this is such BS. It's all out there and you guys are ~ okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything. MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today. 0 And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?
MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow. 0 Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a posilive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it's a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit. MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other - hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling lo any olher piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best. Q So even though it's your own proposal that you guys endorsed you donl want to see it as part of the final
package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it's essential to - the President believes - that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now - we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they're important; they're all about America's future. And they're about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow. And he looks forward lo having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about - long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. 0 Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow - I mean, people have been asking about ~ MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is importanl is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it's not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn inlo sideshows aboul fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that il would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what's good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about. Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking MR. CARNEY: Well, I said - I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations wilh oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific "the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others," but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this. Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning. Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So ~
MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it's absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled: issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks; ;here." So there's absolutely no question that what the Presidenl released in 2008 was his birth certificate and; answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. Bul it conlinued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons!, Bob laid out; Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters? MR. PFEIFFER: No. Q Just to clarify what this document is -
MR. PFEIFFER: This is the - the letter first and the two certified copies - this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet. Q How did it get here?
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane - the President's personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night. Q Last night?
MR. PFEIFFER: Last night. 0 What time?
MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: What's that? 0 When was this gaggle put on - when was this planned?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be "this time tomorrow morning." Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the While House counsel? MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. 0 The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?
MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s - a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request. Q Well, isn't it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process? MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom - and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form - the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entilled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was
a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest - the President ~ so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver. Q Do we have the letter from the President -
MR. BAUER: It's in the packet. 0 And you went to Hawaii?
;MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the ~ the President's personal; counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter - signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu; ;and picked up the birth certificate^ 0 A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA Eric Holder said, "Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation - representing Congress in connection with DOMA I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced." And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder's views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder's views on this. We think - as we said from the beginning when we talked about ~ when I did from this podium - about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General's comments. Q Following Monday's Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The President's policy, which included the beginning of a transition - beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don't have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we've said. But the policy remains as it was.
MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Lasl one, yes. Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent? MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally. Thanks. END 9:18 A.M. EDT
WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV
En espanol | Accessibility | Copyright Information | Privacy Policy | Contact USAgov I Subscribe to RSS Feeds | Apply lor a Job
Noonan et aL against Bowen et aL Case No.34-2012-80001048
Exhibit 7
CERTIFICATION OF UVE BIRTH

STATE OF HAWAII HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAWAII U.S.A.
CERTIFICATE N O . H
CIOID'S NAf4E
BARACK
HUSSEIN
OBAA.A I
OATE O f BIRTH
HOUR OF BtKW
SX E cojN-rYciP(uRrH KONOLULU
AjjgusM, 1961
CrtY, TOVW OR LOCATIOM OF BIRTH
7:24 PM
ISLAND Of BIRTH
HONOLULU
; u a i H B ^ l S hUlOEH NAME
OAHU ANN DUNHAM
STANLEY
; uaTH.R'S RACE
I CAUCASIAN
FATHER'S .XAM^
BARACK
HUSSEIN
OBAAtA
W H E R ' S SACE
AFRICA!^
DATE Fli.eo !}V REOfStf^ft Augtiiii 6.1 g e i
' O H S J ; 1 |RlIv.1tJDI>I.ASFR
TMl c o f V i o r t t a
prima hclo nidcfice aftho f n c l o l birth In u i y court pipoooding, [HRS 33El.l)(ti), )]g.19l
ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE TIHIS CERTIFICATE
Home Articles Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Posted on August 21, 2008 , LIpdated on Novemberl, 2008; April 27, 2011 f3 SHBRE n^.S_]
Summary In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. Analysis Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. ; Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There OTQ plenty of olher, imponani things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.". . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "1 hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino said she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obama's case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth." Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if .Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth ceriificate posted on their websile. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life? Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth ceriificate" on iheir Web site? Corsi: The original birlh certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses lo release il.
Doocy: Well, couldn't il just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate? Corsi: No, it's a there's been good analysis of il on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web sile righl now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses lo produce. Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal. It isn't signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp
The raised seal
HQim
Blowup of text You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes. The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process. We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
0,= p A R T M t : N T O . ^ H C A C - r H H A W A I I U t> A
Blowup of certificate number Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen." We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world's biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything's possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over." In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Kalapu St., Ewa De.ich, Bvit] All davghter, Al>9. ;S. .Mr. and Wrj.. Barack: H. Objma. i'< a m Kaljnljnjolc H\v>^,, icn. Au(i. , SI Mr. and A\rj. Norman Ailna, IMS Fr An.l Anliiu St...'son, Av/fl. 4. Mr. ond f.Kri. Andrew. A. A\.' ^
Obama's birth announcement The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother^ race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it
reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr, would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be. When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes." - by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller Sources United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008. Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008. The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008. Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to 'ridiculous' barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 AT 2:44 I'M V\UID UNDER AR'I ICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA. HIRTH CERTlPICArE.
Qualifications Who's checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here Home Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS
Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility
Submitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments
TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog's credentials on making any sort of forensic document detemiination R.E: Mr. Obama's Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth they don't have the right background (update: see bios here): FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that's fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org's office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn't say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama's bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy so he's a political operative while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature I'm not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement. They are a couple of partisan Obots just what you'd expect Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph suitable work for a Ph. D.
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination ofany document, and FactCheck.org knows it and so do Henig and Miller. FactCheck does say their, "representatives got a chance to spend some time with the 'birth certificate,' and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago." In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Again, as I've said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been could possibly have a trained opinion of the document's legitimacy. Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt ofany such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org's supposed willingness to allow such an inspection). Remember this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama's background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a "short-form" version of a "long-form" birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example). Following up on a story conceming New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama's legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details: In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired: "Well, here's the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attomey General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday (Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire. We based our suspicions and allegations on:
Exhibit 8
United States Depaitment of State

Washington, D.C. 20520
T)EC 10
CaseNo.: 200900535 Segment: PPT Ms. Pamela Barnett 2541 Wan-ego Way Sacramento, CA 95826 Dear Ms. Bamett: I refer to your request letter we received on January 2, 2009 under the Freedom of Infomnation Act (Title 5 USC Section 552) for a copy of documents relating to Stanley Ann Dunham. We initiated a search of the Office of Passport Services. The search of the records of the Office of Passport Services has been completed and has resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. These documents have been reviewed and the results are set forth in the accompanying letter (with enclosures) of Jonathan M. Rolbin, Director. We have now completed the processing of your request. If you have any questions with respect to our handling of your case, you may write to the Office of Information Programs and Services, S A-2, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20522-8100. Please be sure to refer to the case number shown above in all correspondence about this case. We hope that the Department has been of service to you in this matter. ^Sincerely,
Alex Galovich, Co-Director, Acting Office of Information Programs and Sei-vices Enclosures: As stated
United States Department of State

'^^^^ Washington, D.C. 20520
\ s 21 00
In reply refer to: CA/PPT/L/LE - Case Control Number: 200900535
Pamela Bamett 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA 95826 Dear Ms. Bamett: The following is in response to your request to the Department of State dated January 2, 2009, requesting the release of material under the provisions of the Freedom of Infonnation Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We have completed a search for records responsive to your request. The search resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. After careful review of these documents, we have determined that that all six documents may be released in full. We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration. Passport records typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc. since this information is entered into the passport book after issuance.
-2-
This completes the processing of your request. ngerely.
Jonathan M. Rolbin, Director Office of Legal Affairs'and Law Enforcement Liaison Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Enclosure: As stated
FORM
ttfEO
a - J C - . E - aURgJ>U N O . I7.R35^.3
DEPARTMEK C OF STATE
^Passport Office Use Only) Amend as shown In s e c t i o n :
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PASSPORT

I N S T R U C T I O N S : A l l r e q u e s t s (or i n c l u s i o n of persons must bc s w o r n to (or a f f i r m e d ) beforo on A g e n t o f the D e p o r t m e n t of State or Cleric o f C o u r t . P h o t o g r a p h s , w h i c h meet (ho r e q u i r e m e n t s b e t o w , a n d e v i d e n c o of c i t i z e n s h i p must be s u b m i t t e d for a l t persons to be i n c l u d e d by t h i s a m e n d m e n t . If s u c h p e r s o n s hovo h o d , or been i n c l u d e d I n , o p r e v i o u s - p o s s p o r t , i t s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d InstocW of other d o c u m e n t s , a n d S e c t i o n G c o m p l e t e d . PASSPORT NO. OF A P P L I C A N T A T E ISSUED
I'
n o
(sÊ
] Add v i s o poges.
D
BIRTH C e R T I F I C A T E ( S ) SEEN CHIUOtREN)*S PILED SR CR (WIFE'S) CITY P I L e O N A T 2 - N . CSRT. r~l 3 a R (HUSOANO'SI SH CR CITV
MARRIACB CGRT. D f l 5 .1 P
1 1 OTHER
o
IN CARE OP ( P L E A S E PRIHT NAMc IN F U L L I (Ffrst nome) (Middle name) (Laat name)
o
C D
o f rhe U n i t e d S t a t e s , do h ^ i x b y r e q u e s t t h a t my p a s s p o r t , w h i c h i s e n c l o s e d , bo emended o s indicated below. I N C L U D E MY C H I L D ( R E N ) , AS F O L L O W S : ( A l s o c o m p l e t e S o c i i o n H i f chil<l(ren) o c q u i r o d c i t i z e n s h i p b y n o t u r o l i i o t i o n , a n d hove not h o d a p r e v i o u s p o s s p o r t . ) NAME IN F U L L PLACE OF BIRTH (Clly, State} OATE OF BIRTH ( P h o t o r e q u i r e m e n t s for i n c l u s i o n ) STAPLE ONE PHOTO HERE DO N O T M A R F A C E P h o t o s must bo O N L Y of p e r s o n s t o bc i n c l u d e d by t h i s amendment. T h e t w o p h o t o s must bo d u p l i c o t e s , o p p r o x i m o t e l y 2)^ by IVs i n c h e s i n s i z o ; be on t h i n , u n g l o z e d poper w i t h o p l a i n , l i g h t b o c k g r o u n d a n d hove been tolên w i t h i n 2 y e a r s o f dote s u b m i t t e d . P h o t o s s h o u l d be front v i e w , but n o t f u l l - l e n g t h , a n d moy not be snops h o t , P o l o r o i d , o c e t o t e o r f i l m bose p r i n t s . When more then I p e r s o n i s to be i n c l u d e d , o group p h o t o i s r c q u i r o d . C o l o r p h o t o s ore o c c e p t o b l e . DO N O T S T A P L E S E C O N D P H O T O A T T A C H BY P A P E R C L I P
m 0 z u
m Q o 3 It
r n
C
I N C L U D E MY ( W I F E ) ( H U S B A N D ) , AS F O L L O W S : ( A l s o c o m p l e t e S e c t i o n H i ( ( w i l e ) ( h u s b a n d ) n c q u i r o d c i t i z e n s h i p b y n a t u r a l i s a t i o H f o n d / o r Secrion I I f w i f e w a s p r e v i o u s l y m o r r l e d before M o r c h 3 , 1931.) PLACE OF BIRTH f O l y , Srore) (WIFE-SI (HUSBANO'Sl F U L L L E G A L NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
OATE OF MARRIAGE
EXCLUDE PERSONS, AS FOLLOWS:

WHO IS/ARE 1 1 MV WIFE HUSBAND r ~ l TO A P P L Y FOR SEPARATE PASSPORT N O T TO ACCOMPANY
Q M Y Q
MV CHILDREN fCfve n o m c f j ) )
^ / J _ S ' e . S , - ^ S^C -
CHANGE TO READ IN MARRIED NAME. AS FOLLOWS:

MARRIED N A M E ^ .
PLACE OF MARRIAGE (City, Slore).
OATE OF MARB-IACE
Mo/oka^,
1 HUSBAND'S N A M E ' I N F U L L 1 _ _ _/_
U-^citl
WHO IS ' 1 1 A UNI TSO STATB3_CITIZSy1
[ r f * ciTiZKN OF . J Z J K J J C 0 n < d ^ ' '"S
(CHILD(f?ENrS) NUMBER
(WIFE'S)
( H U S B A N D ' S ) L A S T U . S. P A S S P O R T OATE ISSUED
IN NAME OF
I IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH O T H E R DISPOSITION fSrore)
FORM o s p . , 9 7 * 64
(OVER)
TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT REQUESTING INCLUSION IN THE PASSPORT OF A RELATIVE WHO ACQUIRED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH NATURALIZATION
MY I M M I C R A T E O TO
T H E U . S. O N ( M o n t h , d o y .
year)
A C q U I R E D U . S. C I T I Z E N S H I P ON (Month, doy, yeor)
THROUGH
THE NATURALIZATION
OF
SELF
PARENT
1FORMER
HU30ANO
WHO WAS NATURALIZED
BEFORE
THE
(Nome
el
court)
L O C A T E D IN ( C ( r y , S t o r e )
A S SHOWS B Y T H E A C C O M P A N Y I N G C E R T I F I C A T E
OF N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N
NO.
TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHOSE V/lrE WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931, AND WHO IS TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT (If morried more ihon twice, sol forth foots in o tupplementol statement)
H E R M A I O E N N A M E WAS DATE OF PREVIOUS MARRIAGE
N A M E OF FORMER
HUSBAND
P L A C E OF PREVIOUS
MARRIAGE
FORMER H U S B A N D ' S P L A C E OF
SIRTH
M A R R I A G E WAS T E R M I N A T E D B Y DEATH DIVORCE
DATE
IN T H E E V E N T O F D E A T H OR A C C I D E N T N A M E IN F U L L
NOTIFY RELATIONSHIP S T R E S T ADORESS. C I T V . STATU
I have noc (and no other person inclucled ot co bc included in che passport ha.^), since acquiring Uniced Scares citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken nn oath or made nn flffirmacion or ochet formal declaration pf allegiance to a foreign scate; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign stnte; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under thc government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign scate oc participated in an election or plebiscite to detennine the sovereignty over foreign terricory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in thc United States ot before a diplomatic ot consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought ot claimed the benefits of thc nacionnlicy of iuiy foreign state; or been convicted by a court oc court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempnng by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Govemment of the United States. (If any of the above-menlioned acts or eonditions hiiue been performed by or apply to tbe appUeani, or to any olber person included or 10 be included in the passport, the porlion which applies should be struck out, and a supplementary explanatory slatement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.) 1 solemnly swear (affinn) that the statements herein made are true and that I have not previously asked to have these additional persons included in my passport; that they are noc now in possession of valid passports, and thac they have not made application fot passports nnd been refused.
(SigntStura of Subscribed and swom to (ntficmed) before me this
Applicant) .19.
(Agent,
FORM (J5P 7 * 54
Depanment
of State or Clerk of Court)
o U S
RNMCNT PHLNTtNC OPHCS
lUA O - 703-320 (3I3
FORM OPPROVGO I3UOCST QUREA'J NO.
tl-Rln.S
OEPARTMENT
OF STATE I | | EXTENSION I R E r E R R E O TO DEPARTMENT FOR ACTION
FOREIGN SERVICE O F T h C U N I T E D STATES O F AMERICA
APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL A M E N D M E N T
gSRENEWEOfE^gg^ggpi Tn J ^ o l S o l 9 7 Q
I I AMENDED AS REQUESTED
OF ^PASSPORT REGISTRATION Document No {. L I I CARD OF IDENTITY CERTIFICATE u r iircr i i i i OF IDENTITY / _ i _ i r ' Dafe Issu ed J
(.UIDDLE N . ^ M E y
' > '

ILAJ.T NAMEI
'
5oOO FEE COLLECTED NO FEE COLLECTED

of the United States, do hereby
C N
(PLEASE PRINT . - : A M E I N F U L L )
(FIRST .>AME)
apply
for the
service
indicaf'ed day,
above. year)
{If amendment, PLACE Or BIRTr
sel
forth
delails
a citizen on REVERSE.) RB
D/KTEJOF
BIRTH
(Monlh,
n/vo
NOW RESIDING AT
7'
(Street address! city, county,' state) OR ACCIDENT NOTIFY (Nome in full, relationship, sfreet address, cjty, slate)
UNITED
STATES
R'iÔENCE
IN THE EVENT
OF DEATH
z 2
HAVE YOU E V E R ' B E E N REFUSED A PASSPORT OR REGISTRA/TION AS A C I T I Z E N OF THE UNITED STATES? IF THE ANSWER IS YES, E X P L A I N WHEN ANO WHY
PROPOSED T R A V E L PLANS
I I N T E N D T O R E T U R N T O THE R E S I D E Wl T H I N J I INTEND TO CONTINUE g l T ^ _ 0 S T A T E S P E R M A N E N T L Y TO
IF RETURNING TO U. S. COMPLETE THE

PORT OF DEPARTURE
FOLLOWINC
5e
AOROAO
.MONTHS FOR THE FOLLOWING N A M E O F S H I P OR A I R L I N E
TO RESIDE
PERIOD ANO PURPOSE / / ^ p ^ r / A ' A T ^
MACS/BD
OATE OF DEPARTURE
I have not (nnd no otner person included or to Le included in che passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States c i t i zenship, been nniurnlized as a citizen of a foreii;n state; taken nn outh ot mnile an affttmaiioo or other formal declaration of nllesinnce to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a f o r e i ^ state; accepted ot performed the duties of any o f f i c e , post, or employment under the governmeni of a foreign state or p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof; voted in a p o l i t i c a l election in n foreign stnte or p a r ticipatcd in an eleciion or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the .United States oc before a diplomatic oc consular officer of the United States in n foreign stnte; cvec sought or claimed the benef i t s of the nationality of any foreign stnte; or been convicted by n court or court martial of competent jucisdiction of committing any net of treason against, or oiicmpcing by force to overthrow, or bearing ntms against, the United .'States, oc conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government of the Unilcd Stntes, (If eny of the ahove-menlioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any olher person included in the passport or documentation, the portion which applies should be struck our, ona o supple mentary explanatory stofemenf under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the ponion is applicoble should bc attached and made o part of this application.)
i
(To Subsctibed and Sworn to(affirmed) before me this , (SEAU Vice (The Department to the applicant's Consul : of the Unijj will assume that thc consular officer.^Jdcwardlno/the application identity unless a notation to the conicatv \sfn\ê.) lof the Depattmeni's decision, is fully satisfied ns be signed by Applicant - J" - . 19. .Aav of ^ ' - . j ^ ,
7 - 5*1
AMEND TO INCLUDE
(EXCLUDE)
(Wl F E ) ( H U S S A N O)
BIRTHDATE
BIRTHPLACE
SPOUSE
WAS P R E V I O U S L Y
MARRIED
TO
PREVIOUS
MARRIAGE
TERMINATED
BY
DIVORCE
I DEATH
NUMDER OF P ASSPORT
MY
SPOUSE'S
PREVIOUS
DISPOSITION OF MY SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS PASSPORT

ATTACHED C A N C E L E D (EXCLUDE) CHILDREN BIRTHPLACE BtRTHOATB
(DA TEI
AMEND TO INCLUDE RESIDENCE
A M E N D T O R E A D IN M A R R I E D
NAME
DATE MARRIED
PLACE MARRIED
MARRIED
TO
CITIZENSHIP
OF
HUSBAND 1 I U. S. C I T I Z E N ALIEN-CITIZEN OF
OTHER
AMENDMENT(S)
(DESCRIBE
IN D E T A I L
ACTION
REQUESTED)
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED
TO O E P A R T M E N T
BY CONSULAR
OFFICER
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
SEEN AND R E T U R N E D
TO A P P L I C A N T
B Y C O N SU L A R O F F I C E R
STATEMENT
OF
ACTION
BY
POST
UPON
DEPARTMENT'S
AUTHORIZATION
(To
be oxecufed
only
fn connection
with
cases
referred
to
Dept.)
THE
I I
PASSPORT I CARD OF I IDENTITY
I
I I
I RENEVfEO TO
I AMENDED I EXTENDED AS TO REQUESTED
CERTIFICATE
AUTHORITY
(Consul of the United States of America)

OPINION OF CONSULAR OFFICER
(Hboto required for
inclusions)
STAPLE ONE PHOTO HERE DO NOT MAR FACE The passport photos tequired must be approximately by 2^ inches in size; be on thin unglazed paper, show full front view of applicant wiih a plain, light back gtound; and have been taken wiihin 2 years of date submitied. U'hen dependents nre included they should be shown in a.gtoup photograph. The consul will not accept photos that arc not a good likeness. Color photographs arc acceptable. Ot, rjo( staple second photo. loosely by paper clip.
FORM
Altach
7 - en
FS-299
(Consul of the United States of America) In certain cascs specific aulhorization by the Department will be required. In these cnsea nn extra copy of the form should be prepared. Upon receipt of the Pepartmcnt's reply the extra copy should be transmitted with a notn'ion of thc action taken,
.-WOID THE LAST MIMUTE RUSH

C = J = r>,1ENT O F
(PLE.'\SE TYPE OR PRINT)

j-ATE
m i PUT IT OFF APPLY \Cfl

R 0
APPLICATION FOR P H 5 S P 0 = ! T BY MAIL Your previous pcssoort issued wirhin 'he past eight /ecrs, two signed phoroqrcphs end "he fee of SIO MUST ccconpony this npplicotion.
( r i r ^ i lone't
i M i J d If! n a m u i
SERIES
..^'^<^C:^r^&iLii&.
?/Sv..:
lolo';, V,AIL P A S 3 P 0 R T T O : IN C A R E OF (If a p o l i c o b l c S7 A'S Krroby eooly
tH^f-iJ^Tor'Dnt of Store for '
c
HOhr>i.lJLi..H,.'jtfAi!
P h C N E ,'>I05.
DATE CF 8IRTH
Arro Cods:_
Home: ? 7 ^ 0 ^ t f ) ) ' ^ ? / ? ' = j 3 u s ; r e s :

P L A C E OF B I R T H i C i ' r , 5 : i H , P r o v i n c ! , Caunlryt
Yeor
HEICHT
COLOR CF H A I R ir.
COLORÔF E f E S (Soell out)
APPRO.tl.SAAre D A T E OF DEPARTURE
FT. > ^ g - i N .
V I S I B L E DISTINGUISHI.NC MAR,<S CCCI^PATICNtj' .
'.ÔST .RECENT PASSPORT

f ^ - > Cler.-, c'-jr-;- . ; - ' . ^ ,
ISSUED A(1THI^^.PAST 3 YEARS MUST BE ATTACHES

c=J^,--/ . ^ _^ r^-.-
..s
.
/(
,'
.
SOCIAL S E C U R I T Y N D M S ^ R
MY PER.MAMENT R E S I O E N C t ' H iamc 3S m ^ i l i n i j address, -wrlio " S o m ^ l ,
IF Y O U / , V R g BORN . i ^ O A O . WERE B O T H O F YCU'? PAREMTS C I T I 2 5 N S A T T H E TlME OF YOUR BIR'TH?
No
: 'rj. I ' r- -'' g s f-j' I r -r \<'.j !/ i i , ..^ IN THE E V E N T O r A C C I O ' E N T OR D E A T H N O T I F Y (Do not i h o w neme of o perr,on ho * i l l accompony you when t r o v c i m g (Memo in f u l l i (Rfjlotionihipj ( S i r c r ' a d d n s s , C i ' A SIJTI-, Z I P Codo'
PROPOSED T R A V E L P L A N S PURPOSE OF T R I P VlEANSOF T R A N S P O R T A T I O N Other PROPOSED L E N G T H OF STAY Rglurn DO YCU ^ P E C T TO T , \ K E A N O T H E R T R I P A B R O A D ' IF SO, '.ViTHlN 2 Ycjr% ^î^'Ysors
COUNTRIES TO BE VISITED
.Jl.
MO. OF PREVIOUS T R I P S A B R O A D WITHIM L A S T 17 .MONTHS
WA!?iNlf)G; False st3le.Tienl$ matle knov/ing'y 3R! wilUully in passjiOft 3i.plicatnn3 .:r aHitlavils oi olher suppoiling documenls are 'iMiishaul: by'ine ar.d or:-cir.?n-:,it ..'a:: the pfovisions of ;3 U'C ICO! and oi 13 USC IS'I?. The alleiation .-mutilation of a passport issued puisuan; lo Ihis ShOlicalicti is lunishatie ty 'i :P a-'J or imcilionrent uniiei 13 USC 15'!.'!. The use af a passport in /iiijiion of i^.e rsslrictlons theiein is punishable ;y flis ano or nor-s.-nmefl jpder 13 JSC IS'.J. I have nol since acquiring jnileJ Stales cilizenshig, been naiuiali;ed as a cilizsn of a foreign slate; laken an oath, or made in ;if!irn:lijn -r ilher .ir-;a aeciaratici af aPegianiie lo a foreign siate; entered or served in the :ii\ned forces o' a itireign slat'?; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, <\\ em.iloymenl unuer tie Goveinine;i; jf ,1 forfjign slate or political sjbdi /isi:n thereof; naddU formal renunciation ai latlonaiity either in the United States or i;ef jre a diplomatic ,',r cansuiar ai'icer af the Uni'sd ''..,|p-._i.!n,oinn_iiiaiaLj;as; .iMiuuujulaunadjhB..vêjieijts oi the natianality ai any foreign state; or been convicted by a c.;url or ccfi maf.ial of carrfstent jurisaxliir 3t wniiniitiiig 3ny acl af treason against, or attempting by force lo-avertiirTJ*, or be3r:ng arirs against the United iSlates, 01 tmspiring to overthiow, put down or to destroy by fcice, the GnvernTOnt of the United Slates. \\\ any if the iljove-,T>eniicnei! acts or conditions have been performed by or aco y lo the applica.il, Ihe porlio'; 'which aLoJies shou d ae struck out, and a supplementary e.xpionatory statement should be altached, signed and 'made a part af this applicution.i DECLARATION 'I declare imdei the psnallies of 13 USC 1001 and 15-!2 isee '.'MRNINS, atovei lhat the statements .rade in âpctication are true and complete to the best oi my knoA'ledge and belief. I fuither oeclaie that I A'III suc ana defend Ihe C.in^tilulion af the United States against all enemies, forel.^n nnd Joiêstic; thnt I 'A'III b failh and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without 'rental reseuation irfist-iijs evasion. / >' .
(Date.
(Signature of appllcanti
I .(Posspott d j f i c c UsB Only)
4m
^3:11" DSP.82
FOR.M A P P F t O V E O B U D G E T B U R E A U NO
n7-R0) 7
DEPARTMENT
OF
STATE
REQUEST BY UNITED STATES NATIONAL FOR AND REPORT OF EXCEPTION TO SECTION 53.1, TITLE 22 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
REQUEST
1 n.ivi.- been intnnned that my passport i s not v a l i d and that a v a l i d passport i s required by law to enter the I nits/J .Sut.-.s. ! request that an exception be granted to me, as provided in Section 53.2(h), T i t l e 22 o f the Code t KeJerai Rei;u!ation.;. [ understa.od that n fe of S2^ io required under Section 53.2fhJ and [ w i l l remit such fee r,i rlit- p a s s p o r t O f f i f . e , Department of State, Washington, D. C.-. 20524, w i t h i n 30 d a y s . x-\ >/
(Signature)
R E P O R T - Pursuant to Section 215 of the Immigratio'n ond N a t i o n a l i t y A c t of 1952 ^'^^ U i r e c t o r . Passport O f f i c e Department of State M'jshingcon, D. C. 20524 .Attn: P T / . ' \ C SUBJECT
MAME OESCRIPTION ci^fl
BroTO Brown 135 l b . H M ADDRESS DiajLan Taman >fetraman 22 F a v , D j a k a r t a , I n d o n e s i a c r r = 7 \ OE ^ ^ H o n o l u l u , 1617 South B e r e t a . n i a , c / o S t a n l e y DurJiaia) |j ^^(5
BIRTHDATE NATURALIZATION DATE PASSPORT NO., DATE AND PLACE OF ISSUANCE
3TA:ILY
AfTJI SOETORO
fef^
^y^'
Nov. 2 9 , 19^2
BI.RTHPLACE
W. A .
W i c h i t a , Kansas
F 777738 '^-19-|2^ Honolufii, Hawaii

D E P A R T U R E FROM U N I T E D S T A T E S
DATE AND PLACE OF DEPARTURE
DESTINATION
October 1 9 ^ 7 , H o n o l u l u , Hawaii
FLIGHT NUMBER OR VESSEL
D j a k a r t a , Indonesia
NAME OF CARRIER
Japan A i r l i n e s
T R A V E L TO UNITED STATES DATE AND PLACE OF DEPARTURE FROM ABROAD IDENTITY DOCUMENTS PRESENTED
October 2 0 , 1 9 7 1 , D j a k a r t a , I n d o n e s i a
FLIGHT NUMBER OR VESSEL
P a s s p o r t as shown above C^^^^^^^

NAME OF CARRIER
PAA 812
OATE ANO PLACE O r ENTRY
Pan American Airways

DESTINATION
October 2 1 , 1 9 7 1 , H o n o l u l u , Hawaii
I d e n t i t y and c i t i z e n s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d . Exception granted under 22 C F R 53.2(h).
H o n o l u l u , Hawaii
ACTION TAKEN
f5,(:T21.197/
(Inapoctor 3 Stamp)
P L A C E (ImmFgrafion ond N a t u r a l f i d f i o n S e r v i c e )
SIGNATURE (Immigrollon Oi'ficof'
HONOLULU, HAViAII
1 e ^ ^ C r T t ^ t ^ ; ^ ^ _-<25'^'T?-> v__
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
' ^
Fo( Oepartacnt Decision
PGjT LOCATION
Jakarta,Indonesia
REGISTRATION APPROVED Dolo Expires .
APPLICATION FOR i;glPASSPORT O REGISTRATION

Comploto A L L cntrlos In o i l pactions thot apply t o y o u . If Information i s u n k n o w n . <vrile " U n k n o w n " . D o n o t l e a v e b l a n k s p a c e s . U s e a d d i t i o n o i sheets where space provided is not odcquote.
POST ACTION PASSPORT ISSUED
Z2433100 June 2,1976

F^p?rfl J u n e
j t ^ f S S Application fee colloered f T ^ S I O Foo collocted I ] No Foe posiport I v A ^ ''t I i
A
(First name)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS (Middle name) (Lastnamei a citizen
1 / 1 9 8 1 ^^ô QF IDENTITY AND REG.

No. _ Dote . I $3 foe collecrod (for cord) IdS-pOQO posiporT
, S T A N L E L y A / ^ A ), S O ^ T O K d of the United States, do lieieby apply for (a passport) (registration)

OATE OF BIRTH Monlll Oay PLACE OF aiRTH (City, ttoio/pxivlneo, country) Yar
I ' 1 Qfflclol possport
MY LAST PASSPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM (Nore: If inelutidd in another's posspori, state nome of beoror) Location of Usulrô Office Dolo o l tssuarice
HEIGHT
COLOR OF HAIR (Spll out)
COLOR OF EYES (spoil our)
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. * i I I Submittod horewith and returned I Soon ond returned >J r n Qrhei dlposftlon (state)
VISIBLE DISTINGUISHING MARKS
OCCUPATION ^glAP. j ^ j C o n c o l t o d *1A OTI

-f... t MSWrr e i
NOW RESIDING AT o y t , ,
. te . _JJ
srupeAJT FiOMÎ
g l - t tt!
MY LAST REGISTRATION AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WAS APPROVED
PER.MANENT RESIDENCE (Sirooi oddros, c i i y ,
/6/7 S. BtHSTAAiÂ
TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT W O BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION H

I IMMIGRATED TO THE U.S, I RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY IN THE U.S. From (Year) To (Year) (Month, year) .NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE NO. I I Submtued herewith I I Seen and returned I I Previously fubmllted NATURALIZATION COURT DATE NATURALIZED
P U C E TATURALIZEO (City, stale)
COIVIPLETE ONLY IF O H R ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN P S P R O REGISTRATION A D $U,Sfi1IT G O P PHOTOGRAPH TES ASOT R M RU

(WIFE'S) (HUSBAND'S) FULL LEGAL NAME
PLACE NATURALIZED (City, f o i e )
NATIVE BORN NATURALIZED
NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE NO.

I I Seen ond rnixirne^ DATE NATURALIZED
NATURALIZATION COURT
( W I F E J S ) (HUSBAND'S) PLACE OF BIRTH (City, state or Province. Country)
DATE OF BIRTH (Mo., Day, Yat)
NAME IN F U L L OF CHILDREN INCLUDED
PLACE OF BIRTH (City, itote/provlnce, country)
DATE OF BIRTH (Month, day, year)
RESIDED IN U.S. (From-To)
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOCUMENTATION OF ABOVE-NAMED P R O S TO BE INCLUDED (For complelion by Consular Olllce) ESN
NAMES PASSPORT NO. OATE OF ISSUE CANCELED OR OTHER DISPOSITION DATE OF REGISTRATION OR BIRTH REPORT LOCATION OF OFFICE
OTHER EVIDENCE OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP PRESENT EO (Siato dlsposlilcn)
FORM ps-iys 9-74
(OVER YOU MUST COMPLETE PAGE 2)
^PPRO-'B"
BUOOET BUREAU NO. o-nooii
FORM F S - t 7 6
9-74 FATHER'S PLACE OF BIRTH tCily. Solo. province or Csuntty'
PAG ( 5 U.S. CITIZEN

Q N O T U.S. C I T I Z E N
r F
rATHE.=?'S NAME
OATE NATURALIZED
PLACE NATURALIZED (City, itote)
FATHER'S OATE Or SI!TH
[ F A T H E R
DECEASED
FATHER RESIDED IN U.S.
j^FATHER RESIDING AT k^Q^dLULU

M O T H E . ^ ' S MAIOEN NAME
-4-
"""" K^)?TH KANSAS

MOTHER RESIDED IN U.S.
i^<^^'^''^T
U.S. CITIZEN ; 3 , M 0 T U.S. CITIZE.N
M O T H E R - 5 PLACE OF BIRTH 'Ciiy, Sioio, Province or Country)
DATE
.NATURALIZED
PLACE NATURALIZED (City, j i o t o j i
P^fiOl
MOTHER'S OATE OF BIRTH
' ~ ] MOTHER DECEASED
OCT. :!6j^ff22
I WAS NEVER MARRIED r g l WAS LAST MARRIED ON (Dote)
'ÔTHER R3I0INC AT ^QAJ O L
Prom ULOjJfJ^
^ t t ^ 7 ( \
To
f P i ^ A j 1
P.RESENT FULL LEGAL NAME OF HUSBAND OR WIFE
HUSBAND'S OR WIFE'S P U C E OF BIRTH (City, >ioio)
HU5BA.^^D'5 OS .VIFE'i DATE OF BIRTH i.JD
L.6i,o
soercieo
Q
HUSBAND OR WIFE IS U.S. CITIZEN
i p j ^ S B A N O OR WIFE IS NOT U.S. CITIZEN Uiica . k i n OR WIFE N^W RESIDING A T HUSBAND rio w i c s MV'JI a c c i n i t j r t A T '
j g f S A R R I A C E NOT TERMINATED M A R R I A G E TERMINATED BY D E A T H ( ^ D I V O R C E ON
H
YEARS TO R E S I D E
P O O E TRAVEL PUNS R P SD
j S l INTEND TO RETURN TO THE U N I T K ) STATES WITHIN rJ?f^lSIT. / MONTHS INDEFINITE
l NEVER INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES k J " f d )
I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO RESIDE A B g a A R F O R T J j f FOLLOWING REASON
COMPLETE IF RETURNING TO U.S.

PORT OF DEPARTURE DATE OF DEPARTURE , _ ^
NAME OF SHIP OR A l l i L I N E
WARNING: False statements matle knowingly and willfully in passport applications or in alfidavils or other supporlihg uocumenis sumniiieu meidwitn are punisnauie uy fine and /or imprisonment under the provisions of 1 U C lOOl anil/or 1 u C 1542- Alteration or mutilation of a passport issued pursuant lo this application is punish8 S 3 S able by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of is U C 1543. The use of a passport in violation ol the restrictions contained therein or of the passport regulaS tions is punishable by line and/or imprisonmeni under 1 uSC 1544. 8
I have not (and no other person included in the application has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a loreign stale; laken an oa [iiade an affimialion or other formal declaration of allegiance to a loreign slale; entered or served in Ihe armed forces of a foreign stale; accepted or performed the dutios o any oflice, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; m d a formal renunciation ol nationality either in Ihe United Slates ae or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign slate; ever sought or claimed Ihe benefils of the naticnality of any foreign state; or been convicte by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of commitiing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, Ihe Uniied Stat or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force, the Government ol the United States.
'If any of thc above-menttoned acts or conditions have been pcrformccT by or cpply to thc applicant, or to any other person to be Included in tho possport or regtsfrotron, Ihe 9orffon which cppltes should be struck out, and a supplementary enplanalory staletnent urrocr oorh (or affirmation) oy the person lo whom rhe portion Is (ppltcable should be altached ond made opart of ibis cppllcatlon.)
solemnly swear (or affirm) lhat (he statements m d on all the pages of Ihis applicaiion are true and lhat the photograph attached is a likeness of m and of those perso ae e lo be included in the passport.
(To fac signed
ot same timo by husband/wlfo
to be Included
In
passport)
(To be signed by Applicml
In presence of person a^tnlsierlng
oath)
Subscribed and sworn lo (affimied) beforeraethis
^^d day of
/' "V
\ -Li
19_//
(Seal)
Alfr&d
Consul.
H a r d i n g TV of the Uniied Stales at
r
Jakarta,Indonesia
IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (See 3 FAM 243, Proeeduros)
F PPLICATION FOR S PASSPORT REGISTRATIOI)t,g^

C?TP-,P^
D L
& Jai<ar!:a, Zndonasia

R E G I S T R A T I O N APPROVED . Oato Expires _ CARD OF lOE.VTITY ANO REG, No. Date Q Q
POST LOCATION
POST A C T I O N ; PASSPORT ISSUED
A L L arrtrios In all tections that apply to y o u . If information is u n k n o w n , 'wrtte'''Ltnknown.'' Do not lesvo blank spaces. Usa odditional ihoets where spaca providad is not adequate. PRINT OB TYPE ENTRIES. TO BE COMPLETED BY A L L APPLICANTS (First name) (Middle name) (Last numo)
NO.
Date
C3237221
4/23/81
Expires, 4/2 7/88 E l $3 Application fee collocted SIO Foe collected Cl No Foo passport Official passport
STANLEY
AMN
DUNHAM
a citizen BIRTH OATE ItAonth Day
tho Unitod States, do hereby apply for (a passport! (registration). SEX I M f ) B I R T H P L A C E (C)tv, State or Province, Country)
$5 foo collected (for card) 48-pago Q 96-pago passport
APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP Year D Q Birth Cartlflcato Df*as3port
F
HEIGHT
KANSAS, U.S.A.
Nov. I 29 11942
BO N RW 535-40-8522
Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
COLOR OF H A I R COLOR OF EYES S O C I A L SECURITY IMO. (Not mandatory) (Spell out) (Spell out)
Oato:
No.:
I "J-Î 4
Q Submlttod HorevNith ( 3 ^ a n e e l o d a Returned Seen & Returned <.2.tf-sS / o ' o
Bearer's Namo:
H .n.
NOW RESIDING AT
BO N RW
Place: " ^ - d l c A j C t j ^ ^
j g ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ j / j ^ ^ Kebayoran Baru J a k a r t a S e l a t a n , Indonesia
MY LAST R E G I S T R A T I O N AS A C I T I Z E N OF THE U N I T E D STATES WAS APPROVED Location of Registering Office Oote of Registration
P E R M A N E N T RESIDENCE (Streat Address, City, Stato, U.S. ZIP Codo) (If same as abovo,
1617 South B e r e t a n i a , A p t . 1 0 0 8 , H o n . , Hawaii

IN THE E V E N T O F ACCIDENT OR D E A T H N O T I F Y ( N o t mandator/) (Do not givo namo of a person who w i l l accompany irou whon traveling)
Nêin f ^ f ^ ^ , g ^ " f e rteat a n ia .. A p t . 1008, H n r ^ n l n l i ^ M.w..-.-i n i a A p t . 1008 MonnTiT. H a w a i "'rror Address: . u : H A V E YOU EVER BEEN REFUSED A PASSPORT OR R E G I S T R A T I O N AS A C I T I Z E N OF THE U N I T E D STATES? l e ANSWER IS " Y E S . " E X P L A I N WHEN A N D WHY
FATHER'S N A M E
:^?M
Yes
949-2317
IS No
BIRTHPLACE W / C / Z / T / l , ,
BIRTHPLACE Pc-JZl/
BIRT BIRTH DATE
U.S. C I T I Z E N
STANLEY D N A UHM
MOTHER'S M A I D E N N A M E
KANSAS, U.S.A. '1 larc KANSAS, U.S.'A. i )ct.26,'22
fiDYes D N O
U.S. C I T I Z E N 0YOS D N O
MADELYN PAYNE
/HUSBAND'S LACE
a. WAS LAST MARRIED o^^larch 5,' 64l.!'!"J'^î::i^'.:^L'l^J>"""" I WAS NEVER MARRIED L..> 10 Soptom , ^Âui. HA^jQXr.
Bsi'îung, Indooe- Jan.
VtUXK^/HUSBAND'S U.S. C I T I Z E N BIRTH OATE Yes S N O
M A R ^ A G E NOT T E R M I N A T E D M A R R I A G E T E R M I N A T E D BY
2,1936
BmvoRCEON Alio . 2 8 . 1980
IYOU OR A N Y O N E I N C L U D E D IN SECTION B OF THIS APPLICATION BEEN ISSUED OR lri,uuOEO IN A U.S. PASSPORT? g ) Yes No IF YES, SUBMIT PASSPORT. IF U N A B L E TO SUBMIT MOST RECENT PASSPORT, STATE ITS
DISPOSITION:subinittinq
(PHOTO REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS TO BE I N C L U D E D ) Photos must bo O N L Y of persons to be Included (other than passport bearer). When more than one person Is to be Included, a group photograph of the Inclusions Is roquired.
NO.; Z2433100
iuo Date:j,jne 2 , 1976

(CONSULAR OFFICE USE O N L V ) WIFE'S/HUSBAND'S EVIDENCE
COMPLETE IF C H I L D R E N OR BROTHERS ANO SISTERS UNDER AGE 13, A N D / O R W I F E / H U S B A N D , A R E TO BE INCLUDED A N D SUBMIT PHOTO WIFE'S/HUSBAND'S F U L L L E G A L N A M E
BlfTTHPLACE (Caty.StniBorPipvlnoB, C:ouniv)
BIRTH DATE (Mo,Day,Yr.)
Submitted Horewith Canceled & Returned Seen & Returned
CHILD(REN)'S NAMEIS) IN F U L L CONSULATE W I L L STAPLE PHOTO OF INCLUSIONS HERE. OO NOT IMPRESS S E A L ON PHOTOGRAPHS.
BIRTH OATEIS) BIRTHPLACE(S) (City,State or Country) (Mo., Day, Yr.)
C H I L D ( R E N ) ' S EVIDENCE
Submitted Horewith Cancolad & Returned Soon & Returned
I have not (ond no othor person Included In this application has), sinca acquiring Unitod States citizenship, porformed any of tho acts listed In section I on the reverso of this application form (unless explanatory statement Is attached). I solemnly swear (or affirm) that tho statomonts mado on all of the pages of this application aro true and the photogrophd) attached Is (are) a llkenoss of me and of those persons to bo Inprt^ded In thoôsiporr. a Inclt^ded (SEAL) (To be signed at same time by husband/wlfe Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) to be included In passpon) . day of ITo be signed by Applicant In presonco of person administering oath) _ .19 (^1
before mo this
Consul.
of the Unitod States at ^ I ^
OPTIONAL FORflrt 178 (FORMERLY FS-176)
(OVER YOU MUST COMPLETE PAGE 2)
(Signature of (Jerfon taklng'appllcation) January 1973 Dept. of State
UNITED S T A l t S DfcfAHIMfcWi Uh SIAifc APPUCATIOJV Fp<B-i*ASSPOR.T BY R/lAiL î'.. o ' ^ i ' l ^ Q f j w ^ R J C V l O W S ON BACK OF FORW) { ) >!v 0 ^ \ T Y f ^ t l R ' > R I N T IN (Nit IN WHITE AREAS Ol^lLY '.DEmiFVmG FIrS'i ÎIODLE WFOIRiyiATIOlil NAME/ 0 D C N 0050
3^6 155268
hCjjCLUUU PASbr^L.il AGFHr.Y
(WAILING ADDRESS (In Care Of if applirable, Strest, City, State, ZIP Ccriat
ECKELS
Cato
R ^lO O DP Ent!craDiT.cr.i_ SOCIAL SECURITf OJU.rSJ
_A
-I
o o u.
City, State or Provinci^ Cs COLOR OF HAIR COLOa OF EVES
tTE OF BIRTH
M<3rth KO.ME PHO.\'E (Ar23 CotiaJ ISSUE DATE "
Dsy
Year
(.Mo: Mcrd^torv; EUSIWESS
L -3-15' TC: Inches

PASSPORT NUIVIBER (VIOST RECEWT PASSPORT ^ ^ -7 -9 / ISSUED wiTHiM P A s r a Z13\0\cf \ /1 ÊARSWrUSTBE ATTACHED^- ri _ JJU>, - ^ o / p ^ j ^ ,VEARgJ/!;jT BE .lANEW;
I I I I I I 3I
OCCUPATJON DE?ARTli:^ DATs
5ê.ack:i^LS^ sr APT ôci //o/ooô^c^^ M/

suBiV.rr TWO RECENT IDENTICAL P O O SGV O ON THE R V R E H T S I .E EES I
PROPOSED TRAVEL P L A N S A M D EMERGEMCV A D D R E S S t.Vo: f.-ri.-t5.y! LENGTH OF STAY COUMTRIES TO BE VISITED
PEBSO.V TO NOTIFY (M CASE OF E.MERGENCY (Wcl Travt.1,^g With You) NAME IN ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ^0\%\^\^Cf]2XS\ I I7 RELATIONSHIP T ^ .
O A T H A M D S I G N A T U R E (if any cf tha tslovxi^critcrcd a m or ccniiL'ara ko\-Q tenn (Jcrfcm;cti tjy OT app;'/ tr; ih" crnl, lô porilcn vAiii appEca cJtoua to CnsH out, ar;d a ci.'sp!!Ss-.EJV csf ^jnatsiy catjxcr.t chsuld bo omrhcd, ci^riiMl, 0 p3n tjf thb c^f'^zaitn.) 1 h3VJ Rtjj, oir.so ccqulring Ur;t:xj Sura ctitcrt2?::p, been orturcilLzsd ca a c:ur:n of o ferc^jn Gt^to; tr;to cn c3-h. cr mc C:I ticn or other (arr.-;^! drxiratJon of ors^breo to a (zKian ctac?; entered er ccrvcd tn tftc a.-r.cd fcnjcs cf a f::c!in sizto, cuncr' pcrfcTiTtod tha tfutci) cf criy cffiio, pest, cr cirproyrrcnt unde? tho Goveinwcr.t cf a fcrdgn state of pci;?:.;:; Giiid.v\3ia;i thc;;al. 0 ." a fonr::! nr.unfditon of nar^cnality eilher E tho United StEtca or tcfora 3 C'.ptsrrcicz or C5ncu:.:r of i-tcr of thj Urlt^d :J:C-J b 3 f, n cta'.o; or bean esnv;acd by o court cr ccurt m::rt!;;l cf cctnf :i3:t firixnciicn cf crr-r^ltfrj eny an of trcaecn o:!.:!na, ct 3rx."nin!n3 by forca to ovcrSirc'.v. cr fcciflrg cr.r.T c; Unlrid States, cr con;pI:1r:g ta cvcrthrcv, put dc-.Ti cr d.-ctrcy by fsica tho Gc-.;cr:vri;i cf t}".a Uhiicd Sates. WARMING: Fc!30 cotcmenci rtiada knovkingly ard v.-wluHv tn pacrpcrt opp^tiew or ahviniio or other cupporLr.j (Jcairr.e:nt3 arc pun.'ej'udâ by fjTO end.'or imptaermci.t ur.;:ci prtr/i-lona ot 13 USC fCOl and;cj 18 USC 1542. Ttio cltcra::sn or mufbilcn cf o Fa^spcrtfcatcdcurjuer.t to thb app"c3tsn b pun'chritia t y fina and-or ijri:u: 'r.!rs. undar 18 USC 1S43. Tho uea of a paeiîort fn v!sbJ.'nn cf tha r^jist-'ara Cteicln b purbl^tla by i i r j cnd/cr L-rtsriesnire.it under 13 USC l&M. DECLARATION: I dadara that iho soreircnts mejia in thb cppHcctisn ero trito end ecmjieto to tho fcxi cf my brirA-Ieisa crd fcc!i:f, that tho cttaehed phctaijrejha ara araaI:.' cf nta, and that I havo net teen iraisd er fndufcd in a paeepcrt traied euhcajaer.j to tho cna Cutmiited herein.
(Data)
:f cppKcara IMust t Q cigred by cpF;:f.-ni) >
FOUOV; irjSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY-INCOiVlPLETE OR UMACCEPTABIE APPLICATIONS VVlLL*t)ELAV THE ISSUANCE OF YOUR PAG3P0RT FOR P A S S P O R T SERVICES USE OMLY JETPasciicn Bcar=r-Man-.o:^ney 'AlÛCarftONA?FfiOVAL Q^fi Sccn Roturnsd | I L Cf/Tco. CJa W D RECOaO; Tvco af 0Mun>,3n:!s). Nuxter. Oala R!cd/ler;ued, Ccurt/Pbca, Ecarci'D lyerna ea Afp.-prato _ p Ot^r/-.
EvMiintiQ of Nsma Change
FEE
rasT
OF-17U
1-/B
KACit: -i
TO BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION

I I M M I G R A T E D TO T H E U.S. (Month, year) I RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY IN THE N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N C E R T I F I C A T E NO. U.S. From (Year) T o (Year) O Submlncd herewith CD Seen and returned Previously submitted N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N COURT DATE NATURALIZED
PLACE N A T U R A L I Z E D (Citv, state)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS

OCCUPATION VISIBLE DISTINGUISHING M A R K S
P O R M OFFICER. F R FOUNDATION RGA OD

I WAS PREVIOLlSLY MARRIED ON TO (Full legal name)
none
WHO WAS BORN A T (City, State, Country)
WOMEN MUST COVIPLETE FOLLOWING IF CHILDREN OF A PREVIOLS MARRIAGE ABE HICLUDED OR IF PREVICXSLY MARRIED BEFORE MARCH 3,1931
ON (Date of birth)
F O R M E R H U S 3 A N 0 WAS U.S. C I T I Z E N
PREVIOUS M A R R I A G E T E R M I N A T E D BY O O E A T H
DIVORCE
F O R M E R HUSBAND WAS NOT U.S. CITIZEN ON (Oate) IF KNOWN, FATHER'S RESIDENCE/ P H Y S I C A L PRESENCE IN U.S. From (Year) T o (Year)
COMPLETE IF APPLICANT OR ANY PERSON IhCLUDED IN SECTION B WAS MOT BORN IN THE UNfTED STATES AND CLAUVS CfTlZENSHIP THROUGH PARElVfTCS ENTERED T H E U.S. O Applicant wife Before (Name of Court) Place (Citv, State) (Month) (Year) Date IF FATHER N A T U R A L I Z E D : Certificate No.
Q Husband Child
RESIDENCE/CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN U.S. From(Yoar) To (Year) Applicant ^ ^ f QWIfo Gl Husband QChlld
IF MOTHER N A T U R A L I Z E D : Oate Certificate No.
IF KNOWN. MOTHER'S RESIDENCE/ PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN U.S. From (Year) T o (Year)
Before (Name of Court)
Place (City, State)
PROPOSED T R A V E L PLAI><S (Not Mandatory) I I N T E N D TO CONTINUE TO RESIDE A B R O A D FOR THE FOLLOWING PERIOD A N D PURPOSE
Two years contract with Forid Foun(jation from January 1981

1 I N T E N D TO R E T U R N TO THE U N I T E D STATES P E R M A N E N T L Y T . ^ RESIDE W I T H I N ^^^^^5 MONTHS OATE OF DEPARTURE
December 1982.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Tl?e Information solicited on this fc^m is authorized by, but not limited to, those statutes codified in Titles 8, 18, end 22, Unitod States Codo, and all predecessor statutes whether or not-\:odltIcd, and all regulationo issued pursuant to Executive Order 11295 of August 5, 1966. The primary purpose for soliciting the information Is to establish citizenship, identity and entiilement to issuonce of a United States Passport or related facility, end to properly administer and enforce the laws perteining thereto. The Information is made available as a routine uso on 0 need-to-know basis to personnel of the Department of State and other governmant agencies hn/Ing statutory or other lawful authority to maintain such information In the performance of their official duiies; pursuent to a lubpoena or court ordor; and, es sot f o r t h In Part 6a, T i t l e 22, Codo of Federal Regulations (Soe Federal Register Volume 40, pages 45755, 43756, 47419 and 47420). Failure to provide tho information requested on this .form moy result in tho denial of a United States Passport, relatod document or service to the Individual seeKing such passport, document or service. N O T E : The disclosure of your Social Security Numbor or of the identity and location of 0 person to be notified In the event of death or accident Is entirely voluntary. However, failure to provide this informetlon may prevent the Department of State from providing you w i t h timely assistance or protection In tho event you should encounter an emergency situai'*'^ while outsido tho Unitod States.
ACTS OR CONDITIONS
(If any of the below-mentioned acts or conditions havo been porformed by or opply to the applicant, or to any other person to be Included In tha passport, the portion which applies should be struck out, ond a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to w h o m tho portion is applicable should bo ettachod and made a part of this application.) I have not (and no other person Included in this application has), since acquiring Unitod Slates citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or mada an affirmation or other formal declaration of allogianco to a foreign state; entered or served In the ormed forces of a foreign itate; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under tho government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; mada formal renunciation of nationality either in tha United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of tho United States In a foreign stato; ever sought or claimed tho benefits of the nationality of sny foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martiol of competent jurisdiction of c o m m l n i n g any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, tho Unitod States, or conspiring to overthrow, put d o w n or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, W A R N I N G : False statements made knowingly and willfully In passport applications or in affidavits or other supporting are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1001 and/or 18 USC 1542. Alteration or pursuant 10 this application is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1S43. Tho uso rostriciions contained therein or of the passport regulations Is punishable by fine and/or Imprisonrhent undar 18 documents submiited are subject to verificaticn. documents submirtod therewith mutilation of a p a s i p o n issued of e passport in violation of tha USC 1544. A l l statements and
(FOR USE OF OFFICE TAKING APPLICATION)

APPLICANT'S I D E N T I F Y I N G OOCUMENT(S) Certificale of Naturalization or Ciiizonship Passport Driver's License Other (Specify): I D E N T I F Y I N G OOCUMENT(S) OF W I F E / H U S B A N D TO BE I N C L U D E D IN PASSPORT Certificate of Natural|^ . izaiion or Citizenship Passport Issue Oote: Driver's License Other (Specify): Place of Issue: Issued in Name of:
No.: Issue Oate: Place of Issue: Issued in Name of:
1>U.S. Qovarnmint Prlnllng Ofleai 1977ZS1-S47/321*
0 n CM
0 0 50
^TMENT OF STATE BTON, D.C. 20520

ww.s1ate.gov ClAl. HI I! ill li OH pnib'Aii iifif
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
imo
' ^ r v i A'] /' / ///
aA/illJ' J
PAMELA BARNETT'S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE anij RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING
Exhibit 9
1_/C4.
VV
J. V W C L 1 . L J
C4^L1V^11
C4.1
U-L/ L 1W
JL^ 1 .
V/X
WEBSITE INF6RMATION I SEARCH SITE I HOtVlE
Lawyer Search Lawyer Registration How to Submiil; 3 Request For Investigation Rules and Decisions Ethics Inquiry Program Publications New Filings. Hearina Schedules and Clerk s Office Client. Protection Program Resources & Links AROC Organizational Information
LA WYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINAR Y RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Infornnation as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PIVI: Full Licensed Name: Full Former name(s): Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: Registered Business Address: Registered Business Phone: Illinois Registration Status: Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) Baracl< Hussein Obama None
December 17, 1991 Not available online Not available online Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:
None
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625. ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email reqistration@iardc.orq. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests
A r\ r\
y ^
page for details. [ Return to Search ]
TARDC :online access to registration and discipline information regarding Illinois lawyers presented by the Illinois Attornev Registration & Disciplinary Commission, Lawyer Search | Lawyer Registration | How to Submit a Request For Investigation Rules and Decisions | Ethics Inquiry Program | Publications New Filings. Hearing Schedules and Clerk's Office | Client Protection Program Resources & Links | ARDC Organizational Information Website Infonnation I Search Site I Home
Exhibit 10
Chapter 3 - Never Vetted Obama Never Vetted for Constitional Requirements or Even His Legal Riglit to Worli in the 1/.S, Was it Required?
f Introductionf No Congressional Enforceable Requirement (Law) to Vet Constitutional Qualification of President/Vice President Elect f The 111^^ Congress and Electors Never Vetted Obama's Constitutional Qualification f No Federal Agency Vetted Obama y No State Secretary of State or Election Official Vetted Obama f No f U.S. President and Senator y Illinois State Senator wasn't vetted Conclusion No One in any Official Capacity Has Seen Proof of Natural Born Citizenship or any type of Citizenship
The following Chapter provides very strong evidence that Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER had any of his official records viewed by anyone in any official position in the U.S. federal government or state governments regarding his birth place, citizenship, and possible criminal activity. The reason why Obama's records have not been viewed by Congress or a federal government agency is that there is no enforceable Congressional requirement for vetting the Constitutional qualifications of President/Vice President Elects or and no directed punishment for not vetting a President Elect. My evidence was proven to be true by a report leaked in the Fall of 2010 from the Congressional Research. If Congress does not do its job to vet a President Elect, the only way to obtain justice for the Constitution is to go to the branch of government not involved with the election of the President elect - the Judicial Branch - federal court or the Supreme Court or possibly a state court. Some states have removed not constitutionally qualified candidates from the Presidential ballot in the past (California) but failed to investigate Obama's records even though complaints and even lawsuits were filed by concerned citizens. The failed results of this avenue are addressed in my Obstruction of Justice chapter and include Obama's Supreme Court nominees Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor who did not recuse themselves on 3 cases challenging the eligibility of Obama and ultimately their judgeship legality . The hypothesis supported by my research and the Congressional Research XXX, is that Not one member of Congress, Elector of the Electoral College, any state Democratic of Republican party, federal government agency employee including the FBI, Secretary of State, state election board official, judge or state attorney general across the country has ever seen Obama's original birth certificate or other Presidential qualifying documentation regarding Obama. In addition, no state or federal agency while he was Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator and now President of the United States required Obama to provide proof that he is able to work legally in the country. Theoretically, Obama could be an illegal alien.
f No Enforceable Requirement to Vet President/Vice President Elect the l l l ' * ^ Congress and Electors Failed to Vet Obama, but 110^" Vetted McCain
Federal Vetting HR 1503 was introduced by Representative Posey(but not even brought to a vote) and would require a candidate be vetted for meeting the Presidential Constitutional requirements before being placed on the ballot. By having to introduce this bill^ it proves a lack of a current enforceable vetting process which requires "proof" of Constitutional qualifications, not hearsay or insufficient evidence by a candidate like Obama. The Constitution gives Congress the opportunity for vetting a President and Vice President Elect and to the states through the Electoral College and ballot control.
20*^^ A m e n d m e n t
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his t e r m , or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
12^*" Amendment The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence ofthe Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector
The Congress may determine the Time of chusinq the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The electoral college has never formally vetted a President elect's Constitutional qualifications before. Electors are appointed by a party with the intent and by state law, for them to vote the party line regardless of the candidate's legal qualifications. Twenty-four states have laws that require the elector to vote the party line. When an elector does not vote for their party's candidate they are referred to as a "faithless" elector. According to research done by Saint Leo University there have only been 156 faithless votes in our country's history. A Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214) further takes away any discretion of the elector to vote his conscience. For example, even if an elector believed his party's candidate may be ineligible, he would feel pressured to vote the party line or be replaced. An effort was made by a group called Democrat Disaster to inform every Democrat elector in the county that there was a potential problem with Obama's eligibility. The letter asked them to take action on investigating the matter further. All letters were sent certified mail and not one Democrat elector called for an investigation. You can read more about this effort in the Citizen Activism chapter.
As demonstrated by the first document from the Office of Personnel Management, responsibility for vetting a President-Elect lies with Congress. However, California has in the distant past removed a Presidential candidate from the ballot for not meeting the age requirement. California did fail to vet Obama for the 2008 ballot as did all of the other secretaries of state. This is said with 100% confidence because not one SOS has claimed to have seen Obama's long form birth certificate. This website also has letters/emails from all of the Secretaries of State that confirm they are not responsible for vetting Presidential or other federal candidates. http://saveourriqhts.wikia.com/wiki/Vettinq Candidates
Many Secretaries of State were sued to vet Obama, but they all said they had no duty to vet a Presidential candidate - some said that it was the party's responsibility. Many emails were obtained that confirmed these statements. The DNC failed to answer my requests for proof they vetted Obama. Electors could have acted by not giving their votes or by having an investigation performed, but failed to do so. Some Representatives and Senators say it's the court's job to vet Obama's Constitutional qualifications and Justice Clarence Thomas in Congressional testimony recently hinted that the court was avoiding the Obama eligibility issue. So citizens, many of them veterans or currently serving in the Reserve, had to act when our government failed to do so by filing lawsuits and criminal complaints against Obama for not being Constitutionally qualified. Not one lawsuit was successful at getting access to Obama's vital records (the DOJ and private attorneys represented Obama to block his records) or having a court make a ruling whether he is a Natural Born Citizen under the intent of the founders and according to SCOTUS and other federal rulings. Obama's citizenship and birth certificate were also not vetted while he was an Illinois State Senator; so America only has Obama's and Chiyome Fukino's (Hawaii Health Department Director hearsay that he was born in the United States. Once discovery is obtained on Obama's birth location and parentage, and whether he currently is a legal citizen, a federal court of law can make the final determination on his legality of being the POTUS/CINC. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT NO ONE IN THE ILLINOIS STATE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN AN ORIGINAL HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT HAS EVALUATED AND RELEASED HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS FROM THE TIME HE WAS BORN UNTIL CURRENT TIMES. OBAMA COULD NOT BE LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. NO ONE KNOWS THE CITIZENSHIP OF OBAMA EXCEPT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WHO WILL NOT RELEASE IMMIGRATION RECORDS ON OBAMA'S INDONESIAN NAME - BARRY SOETORO aka Soebarkah (from his mother's passport records). This is covered in the Obstructing Justice Chapter.
This letter was a response from a FOIA request that the author had submitted asking whether federally elected officials (President, Vice President, Senators and Respresentatives) had to undergo background checks before or soon after taking office. This is the most shocking of all of the documents that I have accumulated regarding the vetting process.
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Washington. DC 20415
February 2,2010 Ms. Pamela Bamett
Dear Ms. Bamett: This is in resjxjnsc to your inquiry of January 13, 2010, concerning your request for informEition on elected officials. You asked if background investigations were conducied on elected Federal officials, including the President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives, before or soon after they are swom into office. Background investigations are not conducted on elected Federal officials before or alter they arc swom into office. The United Sates Constitution covers the election and swearing in process for Federal Govemment officials. If you have any questions or need further a.ssistance, please contact me at (724) 794-5612.
Sincerely,
Colleen Crowley Executive Program Miboager Policy, Research, and Agency Support Federal Investigative Services
The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires
investigations of White House staff working for the President^ but did not require that the President, Vice President, Senators or Representatives be investigated by any of the agencies that perform background investigations - including the FBI. Consequently, Obama did not undergo a background check as a U.S. Senator or for the Office of the President. (Documents appear on next page and pages 2 and 3 ofthe document are left out for brevity. Underlining done for emphasis by author.) The OPM claims pride in safeguarding the country as a result of the background checks the perform, but who is checking on the federally elected officials?
OflFice of Personnel Management (OPM)
Page 1 of 4
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce
GENTIRAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT OPM BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIOiNS
May 2002 IiVV-020
Why does OPM investigate Federal applicants, employees, and contractors? The interests of national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies ofthe govenunent shall be reliable, tnistworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and luiswerving loyalry to the United States. This nieans that fhe appointment of each civihan employee in any department or agency of the govemment is subject to investigation. The scope ofthe investigation will vary, depending on the nauue ofthe position ajid the degree of hann that an individual in diat position could cause. The requirement to be investigated applies whether or not tlie position requires a security clearance (in order to have access to classified national secmity infonnation). I am being considered for a Federal job and have been given a personnel security' questionnaire. It's very long and usks a lot of personal questions. Do 1 have to answer all the questions on thc form? Much of that information is already on my resume. Yes. The resume is part ofthe application process. Tlie Security Questionnaire is part ofthe investigation process. All of tlie security questionnaire questions should be answered fully, accurately, and honestly. What will happen i f l refuse to give you some ofthis personal inforniation? The investigation is a job requirement. Providing the infomiation is vohuitaiy, but if you choose not to pi ovide the required infonnation, you will not meet the requiienieiits of the job and will tlierefore not be considered fiulher. If you are aheady employed by the Federal govenimeut, your appointment will be tenninated. The courts have upheld this principle. What should I do i f l remember something later, after I've filled out thc form and returned il? Imniediately notify the secmity officials to whom you submitted the questionnaire. I don't want everj'body reading my personal inforniation; who sees this information? The only persons authoiized to see your personal infonnation are Personnel Seciunty, Suitability, and Investigations professionals who have been investigated at the appropriate level and who have a genuine and demonstiated need for access to the infonnation. I'm not a criminal. Why do you want my fingerprints? So that we can verify yoiu- claim that you're not a criminal by checking the FBI's fingeipriiit files.
http://www.opm.gov/Pioducts and Services/Investigatioiis/FAQs.asp
1/8/2010
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Page 4 of 4
Notice that POTUS, Vice POTUS, Senators and Representatives are not included on this list that requires investigation aud clearance will fingeipriut you. Federal Background Investigations. This caused me to send a FOIA to Doesn't the FBI conduct all Federal background investigations' the Office of Personnel Management for verification.
Tlie U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defen.se. and a few other agencies share this responsibility. Tlie FBI mostly conducts investigations on the following: Hiah level Presidential appointees, cabinet officers, agency heads and staff who may work at the White House directly for the President. Many contractors say that a security clearance is needed to apply for their jobs. How can I get a clearance in advance so I can apply for these jobs? Can I pay for it myself? The Office of Personnel Management has no procedure for an individual to independently apply for an investigation, positions maiutauied by conhactor, or security clearance. Clearances are based on investigations requested by Federal agencies, appropriate to specific positions and tbeir duties. Until a person is offered such a position, the govenunent will not request or pay for an investigation for a clearance. Once a person has been offered a job (contingent upon satisfactoiy coiupletion of au investigation), the govemment will require the person to complete a Standard Fomi 86, Questionuaue for National Security Positions, initiate the investigation, adjudicate die resulls, and issue the appropriate clearance. We know that some Defense Department contractors requue applicants to aheady have a clearance, and they have the right to administer their personnel hiring proceduies Ihe way they want as long as they don't discriminate based on prohibited factors (such as race or religion). Persons who already have clearances are those who are already employed by a government conUâctor (or by the government itself) and are looking for other job opportimities. How long does a background investigntion take? The timeliness of a background investigation depends on the type of investigation conducted. Depending on die type of backgiound uivesligation, the scope ofthe investigation may require coverage for specific items. Tlie need for a secmity clearance may affect the time period in which an investigation is completed. Each backgioimd investigation requires that certain areas are covered before an investigation is completed. U.S. Office of Personnel .Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 I TTY (202) 606-2532 "
littp://www.opiii.gov/Piodiicts and SemcesAnvesfigations/FAQs.asp
1/8/2010
Investigations
Page 1 of 1
The OPM states "We take pride in our team and the role we play in U.S. Office of Personnel Management protecting die public tmst and Ensuring the Federal Govenunent has an effective civilian workforce safeguarding our Nation." Wlio is to safeguard the American citizens Investigations from potentially dangerous federally elected officials? Featured Pages Select One Part of OPM's mission is lo protect merit system liiring princinles: ensm'e the suitability of Federal applicants, employees, and appointees: and conduct National Seciirit\' Investigations on individuals who work in positions that require access to classified infomiation. OPM conducts backgioiuid investigations for most Federal agencies and dieir contractor. Oiu' histoiy began with the creation ofthe Civil Service Coimnission (CSC), which was charged widi ensmniig die fitness of Federal employees. In 1953 President Eiseidiower signed Executive Order 10450, which gave OPM (then known as CSC) die authority to manage the Federal govenuiieut's pei"somiel seciuity program. Cunently, we have a contractor workforce of appro.ximately 6,000 field investigators and support persomiel. We also have a Fedeial workforce of approximately 2,000, including field investigators and a support staff tliat oversees investigative work, and develops and implements policy. Wliat is the result ofthis dynamic combination? A higlily-trained, motivated, and professional workforce that represents the veiy best of die Ameiican work ethic. We take pride in our team and die role we play in protecting the public tmst and safeguarding our Nation. We are coimiiitted to providing our Federal agency customers with excellent sei-vice, premiimi investigation products, aud uidustiy-setting timeliness. Ifyou would like to know more about the backgromid investigation process, please Select this link for some commonly asked questions. If you have applied for a position with a federal agency or contiactiiig firai that requires a backgi'ound investigation by OPM and have au additional qi)estiou(s), please review the following: You should first contact die local secmity or himian resources official at the sponsoring agency or fimi to which you are applying. I f you are applying to a position that is sponsored by the Depaitment of Defense (DoD), you may also call the DoD Secmity Services Center at 1-888-282-7682. If you are an applicant with access to e-QIP and need assistance, please Select diis link to be directed to the e-QIP gateway page. Ifyou work for a Federal agency and would like to know what investigative products aud services are available to you, please call (202) 606-1042 and you will be directed to yoiu designated Investigation Progiam Specialist or Select this link to send us au email. For infomiation ou our new automated personnel secmity fomis, send an email to e-ciip(?i)opui.gov. U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 j Q TTY (202) 606-2532
http://w\v\v.opm.eov/Products and Services/Investigations/
1/8/2010
This ennail from Representative McClintock's office also supports the fact that no birth certificate or 1-9 Form are required to start working as U.S. Representative or Senator. Consequently, the current acting President could be an illegal alien and not legally able to work in the United States and we wouldn't know it. If Congress does not do their iob of enforcing the Constitutional reauirements for POTUS. Vice POTUS. Senators and Representatives, there very well could be non-citizens working as our elected federal officials.
Print
Paae 1 of 2
From: To: Will.Diuiliaiii@mail.house.gov; Date: Thu, March 25, 2010 9:22^:02 AM Cc: Subject: Re: Constitutional Requireinents
Thank you for all of your assistance. I will fully read the attachment that you had sent to me - so far it is very eye opening. Sincerely, Pamela Barnett
To:iHH^^^^^B
F ro n^^^^îan^^^^^^^^^^^^^D^^Q a i I. h 0 u se. g 0V >
Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 9:11:57 AM Subject: RE: Constitutional Requirements
Ms. Bamett: Membere of Congress do not have to fill out au 1-9 or imdeigo a backgioimd check. I've attached a Congiessioual Research Sei'vice report which gives useful backgioimd ou the coiistimtioual requiiemeuts for serving iu Conaess. Sincerely, Win
From: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H B H o ^ ^ l Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:34 PM To: Dunham, Will Subject: Re: Constitutional Requirements
Thanks Mr. Dunham. I really appreciate your time. Please answer the following clarification questions that I have. Can you please be more specific on what type of documentation Rep. Tom McClintock had to provide to prove his identity to receive his pay and benefits? Was it the documentation that is required on the Federal Form 1-9? Did anyone in any official federal capacity vet Rep. McClintock's Constitutional qualifications? Is there a requirement that Federally elected officials - Senators, Representatives, and the POTUS have their Constitutional qualifications verified by a federal entity other than Congress? You didn't mention an employment process that Rep. McClintock had to undergo once elected, so I am assuming there wasn't a "new hire" employment process or background check. Is this correct?
htlp://iis.ingl.iiiflil.yalioo.coiii/dc/laiiiich?.g.\=l&.raiid=0f4ii4fallviiqa
9/1/2010
Print
Page 2 o f 2
Thanks again. Sincerely, Pamela Barnett BTW, this has nothing specifically to do with Rep. McClintock specifically. I want to better understand if there is or isn't a fall-back vetting of sorts, if Congress fails in their duties.
Frojj^^^|^j^^^y^|j|y^|jjjji@mail.house.gov> S e n t : W e d , March 2 4 , 2010 2:48:11 PM S u b j e c t : R E : Constitutional Requirements
Dear Ms. Bamett: I am writing in lesponse to your inquiiy regarding whar constimtional reqiiiremenrs Rep. McClintock was required lo fiiinil in order to be swom Lu as a member of tlie House of Represenlalives. Thc constitutional requirements for service in thc House of Representatives, which Rep. McClintock fulfilled, come from Article 1. Section 2 of the Constimtion: "No Peison shall be a Representative who shall not have attahied to tlie Age of Iwenly five Years, and been seven Years a Cilizeii oflhe United Stales, and who shall not. when elected, be an Iiiliabitant of tliat State in which he shall be chosen." Additionally, in order to receive his pay and benefits. Rep. McClintock was requiied to verify his identity. Thajik you for writing. Sincerely.
W i l l Diiuliniii
Legislative Assistant Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04) 508 Cannon House Office Building Tel (202) 225-2511 Fax (202) 225-5444
http://iis.iiigl.mail.yahoo.coin/dc/launcli?.gx=l&.rand=0f4n4 f a l l vnqa
9/1/2010
This only left the vetting of Obama to Congress. Ditd they vet Obama? No, they did not. The press had the option to vet Obama, but failed to do so as well. Congress vetted Senator John McCain with Senate Resolution 511 and McCain provided a copy of his original Panama birth certificate. They however did nothing to investigate Obama even though he failed to provide an original birth certificate for their viewing and admitted that he had a foreign citizen father. No one in Congress has ever reported to have seen a certified copy of Obama's original birth certificate. You will see the common theme of failing to vet Obama's Constitutional qualifications properly. As evident in Congress's passing un-Constitutional laws, the members do not understand or care about upholding the Constitution especially the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requirement to be POTUS. It is not a surprise that even Senator Diane Feinstein only states Obama is a citizen and makes no statement that Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Feinstein and many other congressmen also say Obama is qualified because of the 14"^ Amendment even though that amendment makes no reference to Natural Born Citizen. Other Congressmen repeatedly referred to Obama's online Hawaii Certification of Live Birth as proof he was born in Hawaii and proof he is a Natural Born Citizen. It is frightening that America's leaders would be so naive in the age of altering online photo images and producing forged birth certificates. Some Congressmen just say that he is qualified because he is a "citizen" and completely ignore the Natural Born Citizen requirement such as Senator Diane Feinstein who is both on the Intelligence and the Judiciary committees. Some also reference the unsworn statenient of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, of the Hawaii Department of Health as evidence when she does not have the qualifications to make the determination of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or if he is a Natural Born Citizen. Recently, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie stated publicly that he could not find or produce an original long form birth certificate for Obama - so this means that Fukino lied when she had seen an original birth certificate and many in Congress and millions of citizen relied on her unsworn statements. Also an embarrassment to our country is that U.S. congressmen relied on online and political organizations for "proof" that Obama is legally qualified to be POTUS. The following letters will further prove that Congress NEVER VETTED Obama. NOT ONE PERSON IN CONGRESS SAW A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA. A birth certificate would be the starting point to establish Natural Born Citizenship. To note, head o f t h e DNC Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Obama as being Constitutionally qualified, failed to respond to my letters and emails. Senator
McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.
S f i L f i C T C O \ M l T r E ON
DIANNE
FEINSTEIN
wrELuGecf.~CHAiniÂN
CQMMirrEC ON T H C JUQiCiAftT C O U w i r r E E OiM RULES A N O AUMTNtSrqATlOiSi
United States Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 2 0 5 1 0 - 0 5 0 4 http:/VJflinstein.senare.gov
February 2, 2009
Dear Mr. Barnett: Thank you for writing regarding President Barack Obama's qualifications to be President. I appreciate hearing from you and 1 apologize for the delay in my response. Anicle 11. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to mn for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years ofage and have resided in the United States for at least founcen years. Presidenl Obama meets these constitutional requirements. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria. President Obama. a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President. Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202)224-3841. Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator For information about my position on issues of concern to California and the .Mation or to subscribe to electronic e-mail updates, please visit http //feinstein senate.nov/public/. DF:jy
SHERROD BROWN
OHIO
l me ^mm S n t a td e ae
Vi/ASHINGTON, DC 20.610
November 12. 2008
Deal- ~ Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama has provided several news organizations vvilh a copy of his bixth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals bofn in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-bora United States citizens. The same is true for individuals, such as Senator McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone. Senate rules prohibit me from commenting on the political implications of your letter. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
SheiTod Brown United States Senator SBicw
JIM BUNNING
KENTUCKY
COMMIT recs:
TINANCE E N E H G Y AME3 N A T U M A L RESOOHCES DAINKING, H O U S I N G , A N D
W A S H I N G T O N Of^Hcf-::
316 H A F M S E N A T E OFFICC OutLoiNo
W A G H I N G T O . M , DC 20510 (2021 22a-43il3
Mnittt} ^tatt& Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510
. 1717
M A I N KENTUCXV OrFice: OJXIE H I C W A ' A V , SurlE 220
FnFiTWBiOHT. KY i i o n (8591311-2G02
URBA.M ArFAiRS
November 11, 2008
Thank you for contacting me regarding a perspn's eligibility to run for the President of the United States. It is good to hear from you. The abilitN' lo receive United States citizenship is one ofthe core pillars in cur great democracy. It is outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution and Section 301(a) ofthe Immigration and Nationahty Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a)), that a person who is bom in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen ofthe United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. Additionally, according to the U.S. Constitution, only a natural bom citizen or a citizen of the United States of, at minimum, thirtyfive years of age and fourteen years of United States residency, is eligible to run for die President of the United States. Ln regard to Senator Obama, tiiere is a federal lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania addressing tliis matter. However, as a United States Senator, 1 camiot intervene in the legal process and must defer to the courts to make the appropriate decision about this case. Thanks again for contacting nie. I hope diis information was helpful. Plea.sc feel free to contact me in the fiiture. Best personal regards,
JDVI BUNKING United States Senator JB:cw
H A M R D Office: BOI M A I N SmEcT

SUITE 2
HAZAflO. KY 41701 (fiOB; 435-?39Q
HoPKiNRvtLiF OFFICE: I \0(i Soiny M A I N STRFfT SufTE 12 HDPKIMS'.ILI.e. KY 42240
LRjavcroN OFFICB: 771 CoRPOfiATe Dnivc Suirt ICb LEXt.vcrON, KY .10503 m % 21&-2239 Toll-Froc I-B0O-283-eD83 hno://bunning.sonato.gDv
Loui5tfiu OFF'CG:
600 D. MARTIN LUTHUR KING Jî PLACt
fisop.i 10728 Loui5vn.L. KY 40202 (502) 582-E!34;
OwcNsooTD Orncc: <i22 rRtOCMlCA &Tnr;ET RoOhi 303 OwcNSOono, KY 423cn
[270\ BBfl-GOBS
ED WHITFIELD
15T DlSTBlCT, .<ENTUCKV
COMMITTEE ON KM6RGY AND COMMERCE

SUBrOMWJTTEtS. C O M M E R C E . TR.M)E. A N D CONSUMER FR0TSCT:0N
2 4 1 1 R A Y B U H N H D U S C OrFicE B U I L D U M G
WASHIMGICJN. O C 20515-1 /Ol F/OC: 12021 2 2 5 - 3 5 4 7 HOMEPAGE: wivw.homw.govMtiiinetd
Congress of tfjc Uniteb ^tatesf

ôim of 3^cprcs;cittatibes
OTastjitigton. SC 2 0515-1701 December 4, 2008
ENERGY A N O AIR Q U A L I T Y OVERSIGHT A N D INVESTIGATIONS
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-elect Obama. 1 have heard some ofthe same reports that you mention about Mr. Obama. Of course, the voters have spoken pretty clearly, and so now we vvill move on. I do expect that the news media and the proper authorities will look into any reports which have caused people concem, and that any evidence of legitimate concern will be appropriately addressed. J will continue to monitor these issues closely, as well. Representing thc First Congressional District in thc U.S. House of Representatives is truly an honor. 1 recognize that my voice is only here in Washington to represent my constituents. For this reason, your thoughts and opinions are of critical importance. F sincerely appreciate your comments and look foi-ward to hearing fi'om you in the future. Sincerely,
Ed Whitfield Member of Congress P.S. Ifyou would like lo receive my monthly e-newslctter, plea.se sign upon my website at www. whitfield.house.gov EW: cf
- U l S T H I C r OFFICES-FiRST F L O O R l d C 3 SOUTM M * : N S T R L E T HOf<iNS%'iLLE. K Y d 2 2 f i O i270> 6 3 5 - 8 0 7 9 1800)328-5829 FAX: 1270) 5 8 5 - 8 5 0 6 WIPfTED ON RfcCrCLEO PAPER SUITF. F 7 0 0 NciflTH M A I I U TaMPKiNSvitLC. KY 4 ? l G 7 - l f - M J (270}407-9E03 FAX: (270)487-0019 S u i T i ; 27.4 7 2 7 .înarSTTlcCT HFNOrRf.OH. ICY 4 2 4 2 0 [V70) a 7 6 - 4 1 8 0 FAX: I27DI a 7 6 - f i 7 8 3 RCQM t 0 4 1 0 0 FOUM.'^lM AVCNUipAOUWit. KY 43001 12701 4 4 2 - 6 S 0 I F A X ; (2701 4 4 7 . 6 8 0 5
RICHARD BURR
NORTH CAROLINA
lanitcfl States S n t e ae
WASHINGTON, 0C2GS10.3308
January 23. 2009
Thank you for contacting me about President-Elect Barack Obama's citizenship. I appreciate knowing of your concems. . . . . The Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S Constitution states that "all persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 and was officially admitted as a State in 1959. It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an ofFicial copy of his birth certificate, Since he was bom in 1961 in Hawaii, he is eligible under the Constitution to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In addition, President-Elect Obama's birth records have been certified and validated by the Hawaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the University of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and agreed with the lower courts' rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the legal challenges questioning President-Elect Obama's citizetiship, Again, thank you for contacling me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at http://burr.senate.gov. Sincerely,
Richard BunUnited States Senator RB:msf
(S.mgrBsa at ti?e United ^tatna
January 28,2009
Thank you for contacting tne about President Obama's citizenship. I appreciate your interest in this issue and your views are important to me. As a Member of Congress, it is essential that I know my constituents' thoughts and concems so I can best represent their interests in Congress. I will continue to watch this issue closely going forward to detennine if any Congressional action is necessary. Once again, thank you for expressing your concem on this very important issue. I enjoyed hearing from you. For more information on my views on other issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://connolly.house.gov. Sincerely,
Grald E. Connolly Member of Congress 11* District, Virginia GC/ZF
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
J I M GERLACH 6 T f O1STP.CT. P E N N S Y L V A N W HOUSE CoMMiiTEE OM FiMAN(3Ai S c P v i a s

S u K O M M i m t ON C A P H A L M A K K E T S . (MSURANCS A N D
308 CANNON HOUSE OFFKE BuiiotNO WASHiNoroN. o c 20515 (202) 225-4315 F * x : (2021 2 2 5 - 6 4 4 0
GovrnNMiNT SPONSOAFD EnTiRpntsES SuscoMMUTcr ON FtNANCMi INSTITUTIONS A N O CONSuMfffCREorr HOUSI COMMITTte ON TRANSraftTAHON AMD iN'RASIRUCTUdt SuDCOMMnrrr O N A v u i t O N SuiCOMMimt ON HKIHWAVS ANO TtMMSIT SuHCOMMIITEt ON RAH ROADS, PlPTLINES, ANO HA/AKXXiS
C n r sr of tlje Winittti States; o g ef t

lôuse of iêpre(entatibes[
mammton, 20515-3806 Dece-mber 4, 2008
J:"::~C.^.C.C
Thank you for contacting me regardi'ng your concern with President-Elect Barack Obama's citizenship; I appreciate the oppo'rtunity to respond. Article Two of the Constitution stat'as: "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 thirt>/-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Numerous claims have been made that Senator Obama does not rfieet these qualifications because he is not a natu ral bom citizen. In June, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate confirming that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21, 1959. Senator Obama therefore became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 'i4th Amendment which states that "all persons bom or naturalized in the United Sta tes, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ofthe United States and of the State wherein they reside." I hope this information is rr^sponsive to your inquiry and please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you or your family in the future. With kind regards, I am Sincerely,
Jim Gerlach Member of Congress JG:KM P.S. Please visit me on the intemet at ihttp://www.Qerlach.house.gov.
- DtSTmCT OFFICES: -
eao NofiTH PARK ROAD WyOMiosiNO, PA 19610 1610)376-7630 FAX; 1610) 376-7633
M l Esi UwCHLAN AVENWE EXTON. PA 19M1 If.lOI 594-1115 FAX: (610) S94-I419
580 MftiN STREe^ SUITE 4 THAFFE. PA 1M26 16101403-27B0 FAX: 1610) 403-798S
JEB HENSAflMNG
TeXAS, 5TM DtSTRKT CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE dOMiMrrTEEisi BUDGET FINANCIAL SERVICES
I
f
OI9TniCTOFnCES: 6610 AORAMS ROAD DALLAS, TX7S231 1211) 349-9996 702 EAST. caRSiCANA Smeer ATWENS.TX 76751 (903) 676-$2ea
^pn^m of t^t W xth ^tatti b it

W mt of ^predmtatibesi p i
' Maftînsôn, i3 20513 January 26,2009 .
.intiii!iai:cu.7'n?o.RT*^*^*'^>'.-'
Thank ypu fot <îitj&rtiag nnlej with yiour cphceiiis: about the President-elect I arack Obama's eligibility tote pis|dfeiit. 14pi^qi^te:havlagthe benefit pf yowr views om bis issue. Article II of the Constitution outlines the requirements aperson must posses s or have attained to be eligible to beconie presid^ of tie United States. Specifically, it requires that the mdividual be a natural born citizen, atleast 35 years ofage, and have lived in the United States for at least the previous 14 yeaes As you may know, |uriiig t le recent presidential campaign, some claimedt i a t lMr. Obama was not a nat'twal bom cMzen as required by the Constitution, are thus not eligit^leto'be president' In Ithat June, his campaign releasee a copytofhis birth certificate which showed " he had been bom in Hawaii on Augu^ 4,1961. Hawiii'was admitted to the Union on Augustt2l , 1959, making it our 50* state and makiiiig any person bom in tiie state on or after that date natural bom citizen. a ballenges to his Additionally, several lawsuits haveibeenfiledaskmg couits to review any c decided that there is any. citizenship. To date, no fe<|eral'co^rt, includiiig the Supreme Court, has dei truth to the allegatidns that iyroUld ddsqiiaiify Mr. Obama;ftomserving as president, Thank ybii again fay cpnta? tingime; I appreciate having the opportunity to serve you in the United ^tatS;H) Yours respectfiilly,
; HEjMSARLINI^ Member of Congress JH/RS ' ' I
i
132 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILPNQ.WASNINCTON. DC 20619 (2021229-3481 *- wiAw,hlousa.govmi)raarlms
STEVE KING
Snt CtsmcT. tcijk
COMMirrEES: AGRICULTUHE JUDICIARY POUCY SMALL BUSINESS
Jlinuary 29, 2009
Dear3 Thank you for expressing your concern about the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's United States citizenship. I appreciate you taking the time to express to me yoOT thoughts on this important matter. Wliile I do not understand why President Obama has refused to. produce evidence to clear up this question, my office has discovered confirmation that puts die question to rest. You unil find attached a copy of President Obama's birth aimouncement Ln thc Honolulu Advertiser, dated August 13, 1961. This shows that President Obama was bom in the United States and is therefore an American citizen under tiie 14* Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please feel free contact me in the iliture if you have addilional comments or concerns. I enjoy hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Steve King Member of Congress SK\GN
cQUHCt. auuFTs ornce

*Q PCARISIFEE:
Slum LAKE QfPOE 800 CnaO.A ST. SUITE A FAX: (MI] n^3<07 FAX: ITI?] Z4-*eea ^îTizssassyt
VAwvsTajt. ojc omce I ITS i.WGVfOnT>1
COUKQL BLt^^f S. MSlSOS

(TiSjMS-TStW
FAJC: i^^7)33St^95
JOSSPH I UEBEHMAN
Omui Buumt
Ha^^^ri.^Â..c^^-,A...^ lanital States ^mm

WASHINGTOH DC 20S1(M>T03 FII^^^ÎMOE
January 21.2009
birth..
Thank you for yourrecentinquiry regarding President Barack Obama's place of .. .. . . . . . . . .
According lo infonrnatior> provided to me by his former Senate office. President Obama was bom in Hawaii on August 4.1961. A copy of his birth certificate has been made available to the public, and you can view this documenl by visiting the following website; http.7Avww.factcheck.ofq/Bteclions-200aflbom in the usa.html. Ismwssaw. that there were lav/suits brought challenging the authenticity of his birth certificate snd other related issues, but in each case those allegations were disnussed or were detemiinod to be false. 1 hope you find this helpful and that you vuiil not hesitate to let me know if I can be of any assis^nce on issues pending before Congress. Thank you again for sharing your views and concems with me. I hope you wifl conUnue to visit my website at http://llebennan.senate.gQy for updated news about my wotit on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress. Sincerely,
Joseph I. Ueberman UNITED STATES SENATOR JILrbg
SANFORD D. BISHOR JR.

SECOND DISTRICT. GEORGIA
(tSTKctorracs. ALOANY 235 ROOSEVELT AVtXUS AlQAMYTOKTRS, Sum] 114 AlOANV. GA 31701 FAX; ^^3l))<a<^^lns COLUMBUS 18 N-jmt tTKuT. SfTTc r o i COtUM0U3.GA3101 PIION;^ r m ) 320.0177
COMMRTTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUCCOMVrniES: Acfocuiniftc MOJTARV CONSmXIVKilVA
(longrEaja of tl|c Mniteb ^tatcB

3 o 0 of IReprmntatiUBs HuE
Hfaalfington. 130120515-1002
February 6, 2009
FAJcnoeisM-oaTs
THOMASVlUE 137 JACJCSON STRECr THOJAASVtlLC. GA 317D2
WASHraiTOMOFKCe
2429 RAYDURM HOUSE OVRCE GUOKNO
WASHWGTON, DC 20515-1002 PHOKC;(203) n^3S3^

FAX:(202)Z2S-2203
Puoxc (7791 zia-rna

t t x a m ) 229-7C0
Thank you for contacting mc about thc qualifications of Barack Obama to be elected President of the United Slates, i appreciate hearing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond. As you may be aware. President Obama was bom at the Kapi'olani Medical Cenler for Women & Children on Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. At this time, Hawaii had been a U.S. state for two years. The Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constiiuiion slates, " A l l persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." President Obama's birth in Hawaii alone conferred upon him natural bom citizenship to thc Unilcd Slates. On October 31,2008, the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirmed that President Obama was in fact bom in Honolulu. The Heallh Dircctor personally verified that Hawaii's Health Depanment holds the President's original binh certificate. The existence and accuracy ofthe birth certificale also was verified by the non-partisan organization FaciChcck.org which senl a representaiive to Hawaii to analyze thc birth certificate in person. Additionally, nine days after President Obama's birth, a birth announcement was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961. I appreciate your taking your limc to contact me about this important issue. I trust that you will continue to share your thoughts with me on other malters of concern. I f l may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me. With warmest regards, I remain Sincerely yours,
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. Member of Congress
bishop.email@m3il.house.gov www.house.gov/bishop
fKNrto OH RccvtofD n>nft
JON KYL
sjrj
OMMn rtEON llN.^^J::l iMrT-3:to< n i L . .iJiLi.'.'iv
Tlte ti t d
Senate
.T4ftKar.THC
S" r i
vtimi'MGTON. DC 2(iSi C-OSCM
tjcccinbei:-1, 20Q8
Mr, Sxcpbcn Lumpkin G lenJule.. Aiiiuiui^ 8 5308 Hear Mix Lumpkin: Titanic yoit tor .yrmr fcccnt ismail. Prt&ident-eleci Obama tnccts thc constltulianHl requirernecils fo? presjiiciitial otlHcc. RURWIS p^rtaJniilg to 5iis citizenship sUilus hiive Seell ciircillati.i.ig on the Intc-met, and thii information kas been debunketl by Stldpes.conu.which invcstiijatr.s ie IfulEi bellLnd Intcmct rumurs. Tur icwre ULforJliauotl, yO'f.L may vsiii^^ littp:.'Vs!:iopas.c<)m.''[>n1iricA-'obEUTia.''dtizgn.a!5.T). Aa for llie l e p i cliaikngcK to the Prcsrd:?nt-t:ldct's titi2eiishjp. otic ot tbosc cp.scs is peildi.Og before the Suprerric CourL
SiiKcrcly,
JON KYI
Utlit<i(1 STati?s ScHAtoT-
And I thought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyi seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obama's records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.
RICHARD SHELBY
ALABAMA
RANKINS MEMBER-COMMimE On BANKINO, HOUSING, 8i URBAN AFFAIRS COMMiTTCe ON APCnqpfuMIONS RAHKINC MBMeER-SlinCOMMITTCIi OFI COMMERCE, JusTiee, SciENcr. & RCLATEO AGENCIES S>f rjAt, COMMrrrtc ON ACIFIO 110 HART SHNATC Orncc BUILDINU WASHINCION. DC 20510-0103 (2021 22'I-S744 hnp'Jfahclby.GanaiB.aov E-inail: scnalor@shQlby.8onaio.gav
STATE OPFICES: O ISOOFipm AvENUBlôRTM 321 FEOEHAL BuilOIFtG BiRMiN-OMAM. AL 35203 (205)731-1384 HumSVIlIX iMTERNATONALAiRPOnr 1000 GI.FHN HE AHN BOULEVARD 80X20127 HuNTsvitLB, AL 35B2<I (256) 772-O^SO 113 S A W JOSCPH SmtlTI 445 U.S, COURTHOUSb Moa:LE. AL 3S602 (251)604-4164 IB Lte STREET FMJ FEDERAL B L O O , SUITE 208 MoNTooMcnv. AL 36104 (334) 223-7303 1110 GRCCKSOORO AVENUE. 2 4 0 TUSCALOOSA, A L 3S401 (205) 759-5047
flnitEd States Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0103
January 29, 2009

O
Ms. T e r r i Storm President/CEO Storm Consulting Group 4 524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama 35022-4184 Dear Ms. Storm:
Thank you f o r taking the time to,contact me about President-elect Barack Obama's c i t i z e n s h i p status. I always appreciate hearing from my cohstituerits. Under the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n , Section 1 of A r t i c l e I I contains a clause t h a t states: "No Person except a n a t u r a l born C i t i z e n , or a C i t i z e n of the United States, a t the time of the Adoption o f t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , s h a l l be e l i g i b l e t o the O f f i c e of President; n e i t h e r s h a l l any Person be e l i g i b l e t o that O f f i c e who s h a l l not have a t t a i n e d t o the Age of t h i r t y f i v e Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident w i t h i n the United States." Many have contacted me regarding the nurnerous claims and lawsuits c i r c u l a t i n g on the i n t e r n e t a s s e r t i n g that Obama i s not a n a t u r a l born c i t i z e n and therefore i n e l i g i b l e t o become United States President. However, President-elect Obama has presented h i s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , showing t h a t he was born i n Hawaii, and i t has been v e r i f i e d and confirmed by Hawaiian o f f i c i a l s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Supreme Court has declined t o act on any of the cases contesting Obama's c i t i z e n s h i p . On January 8, 2009, Members of Congress were given the opportunity t o contest the issue i n a j o i n t session of Congress, but no such o b j e c t i o n was raised during the meeting. By a l l accounts. President-elect Barack Obama meets those requiremerits. Please be assured t h a t I w i l l continue t o monitor the s i t u a t i o n should f u r t h e r issues a r i s e . Thank you again f o r contacting me. I f I may be o f any f u r t h e r assistance, please do not h e s i t a t e t o contact me. Sincerely,
Richard Shelby RCS/stt
JEFF SESSIONS
AUBAMA
c. Mr E = o rE S M
lamtefl 3t9teB Senate

AHMED SERVICES JUDiaARY ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES BUDGET
January 23, 2009
Mrs. Terri Storm 4524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama35022 Dear Mrs. Storm: Thank you for your recent letter regarding President Barack Obama. As you are aware, stories have circulated that call into question President Obama's citizenship. Additionally, various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Obama is not a natural bom citizen of the United States, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, President Obama released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity. As you may know, on January 8, 2009, Congress certified and tallied the Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United States. The office ofthe presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no matter who occupies the position. As we move forward, Americans should expect Congress and the president to work together to find substantive solutions to the pressing issues that our nation faces today. Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance to you. Very truly yours.
jssions United States Senator JS:cd
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
JEFF SESSIONS
ALfOAKA
Document 78-1
File(j 10/01/09 Page l o f 2

TON.>.'jrnu.s.
A.1;.m> FSViXn
ratscv Ati) ;mx xn. a^-r^ .'MS
l me States S n t a td e ae
December 16, 2008
Birminijham, Alabama 35213 Dear Ms. Thank you for your recent letter regarding President-elect Barack Obama. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Constiiuiion ofthe United States requires that all caiididales for the office of President must beat least 35 years ofage, natural born citizens, and residents in the United States for the previous 14 years. As you know, stories have circulated that call into question President-elect Obama's citizenship. To this end, lawsuits have been filed alleging that Obnma is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the office of Presidenl. One ofthe most highly publicized suits was filed by Philip Berg on August 21, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This suit was dismissed on October 24, 2008, and Berg subsequently filed an appeal. The decision to hear the case is still pending before the United States Supreme Court. A related suit, filed by Leo Donofrio. was recently submitted to the Supreme Court. On December S, 2008, the court declined to hear Donofrio's suit. Senate ethics rules preclude me from becoming personally involved in pending litigation. 1 sincerely hope this matter can be fiilly and promptly resolved by the courts, in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me in the fiature should you have a question regarding an issue over which I have jurisdiction. Thank you again for writing. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome.
Very truly yours,
jefriiTssions Uniied States Senator
JS:cd
PiCiTED ON RECYCIXD PAPER
1
TO 01 OS O O
: UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-010* OFFICIAL BUSINESS U.S.S. PKSRT STP
0)
T
00 (U O O
a IT I O
Mr*TL TP I 3S2f3 l..ll..l.l,l.|.||||,l,|.||,i|,|ii|,|,)|,||
o o
> o
cn o
00
I
a >
(O 03
With all of the evidence uncovered regarding the lack of vetting of Federal candiates on the ballot, I then thought that the states would be the same way and my assumptions proved to be correct. The next emails and documents prove that no one in the State of Illinois in any official capacity was required to view a birth certifcate for Barack Hussein Obama in his bid and election for the Illinois State Senate. Obama was also not required to complete a Federal 1-9 Form to be able to receive pay and benefits. Consequently, again Obama could have been a noncitizen or illegal alien or non-citizen when serving as an Illinois Senator which is against the Illinois Constitution and Illinois election laws.
Gmail - FOIA Request for State Elected Legislators
Page I of 2
FOIA Request for State Elected Legislators

Mayer, G. Allen <MayerGA@mail.ioc.state.11.us> Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Dear Ms. Barnett:
The Illinois Office of the Comptroller (IOC) is in receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning state legislators.
First, you may not realize that the Illinois FOIA does not require agencies to answer questions. Rather, the FOIA requires agencies to make available non-exempt public records for inspection and/or copying. The Illinois Courts have made this clear: "The Act does not compel the agency to provide answers to questions posed by the inquirer." (Kenvon v. Garrells. 540 N.E.2d 11,13 (III. App. Ct 1989) The newly amended Illinois FOIA also clarifies this: "Each public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying ail public records, except as otherwise provided in Section 7 ofthis Act..." (5 ILCS 140/3(a)) and "This Act is not intended to compel public bodies to interpret or advise requesters as to the meaning or significance of the public records." (5 ILCS 140/3.3)
However, In the interests of a greater understanding of the IOC and its operations, please know that 1) the IOC does not have any role in determining the eligibility of elected members of the Illinois legislature and 2) elected members of the Illinois legislature do complete and file IRS form W-4 with the IOC in order to process the State Officers payroll. Please be advised that the individual IRS W4 forms filed by Illinois legislators are exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1 )(a) of the FOIA.
I am an attorney, but I am nof your attorney. I cannot give you legal advice in response to your inquiry. If you wish to have a better understanding of Illinois elecfion law, I suggest fhat you retain
htrps://inail.google.coni/mail/?ui=2&ik=5f3534381a&vievv=pt&search=seiit&iiisg=12790...
3/26/2010
Ciiiinil - F O L A R e q u e s t f o r Stnte E l e c t e d L e g i s t n t o i s
l^nge 2 o t ' 2
a n I l l i n o i s a t t o r n e y w i t h e x p e r i e n c e in t h a t f i e l d .
ThanK y o u for your request.
G. Allen Mayer Special Counsel and F r e e d o m of Information Officer Illinois O f f i c e of the C o m p t r o l l e r
From: Sent: ' T o ; Mayer, G . Allen S u b j e c t : F O I A R e q u e s t for State Elected Legislators

(Quotod toxl hiddoiij
litl:ps://iiinil.poogle.coin/in.Tit/?iii=2&ik=.5t'353^l3S la<.'tview==pr&search=.sent&rnsR=l279^
3/26/2010
The Secretaries of State in each state are ultimately responsible for the elections In their respective state. None of the states in the country vetted Obama's Constitutional qualifications because they do not normally do that. Most SOS's stated it was the political party's job and a few said cited election officials. The Illiniois Secretary of State's Office states that "The Secretary of State does not perform any type of background investigation on candidates. The Secretary of State does not verify identity, age, residency, and citizenship of candidates."
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

JESSE WHITE Secretary of State
March 18,2010
Dear Ms. Bamett: This office is in receipt ofyour letter wherein, pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Ijifonnation Act, you request a variety of responses about the requiremenls for a candidate to bs placed on the ballot Ibr slate or federal offices, and what action, ifany, do agencies in the state of Illinois take to assess candidates' information to delenTiine whether the petitioner for office is entilled to a place on the ballot. This letter will provide information only for the juinsdiction ofthe Illinois Secretary of State. You are advised lo pose the same questions about candidates to the Illinois State Board of Elections, 1020 S. Spring St., Springfield, IL 62704. All candidates For state offices, such as govemor. lieutenant eovemor. secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, comptroller and membei-s ofthe legislature and members of the state judiciary, must file a St.itement of Economic Interest with theoffice ofthe Secretary of State. A receipt showing thc date of filing is provided to the candidate who submits the receipt lo the Stale Board of Eleclions. The statement remains filed in the Index Departinent of llie Secretary of Slate and is a public documenl, available to anyone who requests a copy or to review the stateraent. The statements are also scanned into a database and are available online. The Index Department of the Illinois Secretary of State does nol verify anv of the information provided on the Statements of Economic Merest.
Springfield, Illinois 62756
The Secreiary of State does pot perform anv tvpe background tnvesUgation oti candid.^tes. The Sccre(ar>' of Statt does not verify idnlity, age, residency and ciliyenship of candidates. The Index Depanmgit ofrti>rilirtois Secfefary of State d R ! tuH have any duties lhat o< detemiine or addrea; the candidacy of individuals seeking federal offioa I f l can bc of further service lo j'ou, please feci welcome to contact ma Sincerely, David WeiAflum Freedom of Infonnatioti OOicaIndex Department I I I E . Monroe St. Springfield, IL 62756 Copy: Donna Leonard
The Illinois Board of Elections does not qualify candiates for state or federal office as well. See their responsibilities on next page.
Board Functions
Page 1 of I
Board Functions
Adoption of rules and regulations to clarify and improve the election process in Illinois, Supervision, inspection and review ofall election and regisb'ation processes in the state. Preparation and disbibution of uniform manuals of instruction and other materials to election authorities. Preparation and circulation of canvasses of primary and general election retums filed with the Board. Determination of validity and receipt of nominating petitions and certificates of nominations. Dissemination of information and counsel on elections. Investigations and hearings of election complaints and problems. Recommendations of new legislation and evaluation of pending legislation to the Election Laws Commission and the Illinois General Assembly. Approval of voting machines and devices for use in the state. Development and administration of education programs for election authorities, candidates and the general public. Determination of validity of petitions submitted by popular initiative for constitutional amendment. Certification of ballot forms for constitutional amendments and other statewide referenda. Proclamation of election results. Administration of Campaign Rnancing Act.
http://www.elections.state.il.us/AboutTheBoard/BoardFunctions.aspx 3/18/2010
The Illinois State Assembly which governs Illinois State Senators and Representatives also does nothing to verify that their elected represtatives meet the legal requirements under the Illinois Constitution. See next page.
OFfPiCE OF T H E SetiiATe. PK.E:si.:oi5?if
JOHN
CtsttERTON
323 S nSitl! OrtfrniL
.SElUTEiPEUmCBNiT
yEa.tlBiiMl! Stolgji.Minjri
tV{a|?li 15, 2011)
Warre-sg .Way-
Rtil; V a t A beai-LVl&Sarjidl:
ftjiii^gt
I>iitad:i.VlaiSi!i>i %K\t<i
Ota Nfjinli 9.^10lQ'f tins oflice re:<iv*d pour fj^sedotn o f JnfoiniHliaiii Acl: ( " F O I A " ) reijnBSti, (SaHed Manch 3,. 2.CI!I'U'.. Your êUerieeks'ihc faClqwinglarwshisluin:
l Afi^ sleti:
fmoes >eK) r;p!;tnl.ni:l>^f jcqLiirci^ iô liiiticfgo nnd piiss
backQfnqid: gnveiliptiani liil> verify* n linmiP Qcid c|ir;:i:nî^ Elai:us^ 2. Are jeiiBljcH^s, undi ceprcs-Ciiitzti'ire;: reqinrsd tp c k o f pi c r ^ | r i n | &)ct;siQui!d cêc};? 3. A i 4 iftcalifirS aixl sKpnieiiSi'AhvJ niguitMl to isiitcinil: A bli-llii c-RitiircatE' and an. Uji'
foJteralJJwiiiV'
4!, W^sl: >dQiiniei>i:xl!i30 aeci siina\jsts at\d KfK^fi^ntfi\\vts Te^viTe4 in- . v ^ ^ T i h:fg}T^ fecei-dni;; a. |;i|}tis>:{k and birrifti!!? Si^lLctft i olfdia 3^SA, -i i M l S 94D.^J, Ei3q.Uii!:ii p M h b d i i i f j to "ladiiUilQ nmi nuke availabla' f i x
tnsjKCiikiiii an^ eopyliij n rcBmisLifily eairsii.? li&i; cf liil' ijypcs or cg.rci50Fiiea of feeoi'ds miiir ffi
onafroi,'* .Rafhas fhtn irisigntins records Cffidsr (Js cniVirDjl laf IIIsniHj: SftniNt, ihowcver/j J'OU!' FOEA roqufiie upfusciitly 5iM>!ks legpll >aanlLatic-ng..ariinion, arid cntcrppelvurpn, AKjOrdinglyv jvnir requAii: lisi b'}>3ndi lii6 isDapc' irf FGIA. Sea 5 ELCS l #/3.1{FOEA îs not inDcriidEd li> cumipcl ipublie hoiiits m uiLcrpctl Or asLVlu!: iiet|ucSLti!ih' .\i> llki nittaidiig; r jEgniliCatke olf \tx' pu\A\t
WSlhQiil; ivajvfn.g: any o f flta exeinplSgris .sRbsdeif ipncfer FOIA, w ! i n w providod yOH tt^h S 1 ?6 bcf>i)<v Dafo.iitimbiuui iSauiiaiiA^fihi.
Kganliii($ rcquuiiSU- 1^3^ tlw .llEln!)cj -Senalb lidit nM pj&seis er tnafntBin. any inibnimiliDni lîjlifdlnf S4tl6rjDi' or i'e^n^4Âtiiv6'S tfAsSc^tllid. lltiVClcieHib&Ju Ic^ Imiae Veriii'aii&n;.
s\nm ver[fiicnrij;<); criinlnKl bn^îQundi aliefl^ ibli;ilb eciidflcaii^L CiMiJl&ux:;^

Stiierat fibiDi, îflio llJiiidiS; Senals -iMtti die }|]liie>il ihDiiSn iStT inirpreTildfc>sie$ u e hvo ssjiaraie end dlitmci: ceil[llK As sudi,. llie Jlliimili^ S6bS\f) decs diSt inallitaLin ipdsScSSi jlifiinimlwn on rcipriuEiitaljves-,
Any iivfbmiifltan inrvdlhi'li^ 9lm$ 4etr!ito!JV$ shoiihl!; ^Fttr-îiMl to 4li(. fOlA OI!)jDcirforihu
lUiivgis HcQse oF JleprcsenEaiiws via mnil CCI?rlt o f tiie Hsft'l*, fUVKY! Jfiî Sl3! iSltsilijI, SpriinfiriEli^ \LG2TQ6),. ctrmiiflllinptt]inuK.fbta)gi3Ba.gov|L: eir fjtx {2 |.7-782-3J8S)i K@aiidili(i; r ^ i i C i l -ij, diQ tJUlidis S0lc (kicS. ilOl: haildJfi Salary ";puyclicck: and bszwlii!]^ lhce
lîncllpris arc i!iind';l<l tiy ilLirikilS'Cliinipltullar'ii: olli^b Vu fssay vfiih e csîuuvniiha ?CL\ o
a f E c a Sar the Caa\jfiT<t\}a^s offitit 19 b(in iin/^ Epecific inrnnruitliTfl JW!! AfCS Ccl;[j^ foHbwing zddrss: dffCD ct llia^CfilitjfiTiVilkv F'Tcedj^v) nf JnCoriliniilnni C'ffli'^ tdbt
A|;n; Ai|l!!n Miij'vr 201 CufAui |it:liigjl1ey, L\\hfi\;^S27m

Mnvei<?A^t|ll'igp.mte;IIUis As f o p l r c d b)< Sl^Slteii.StA) or^'CiiAj, tlb Ldta>jtiia:.orith.puddcis:1,sî vcri dpnauUted n:g.Qrdii^
jvur FOIA jcifu?5!; Jilfeyjic P^pck, Sc!^j' of Scnnti!; Swirt tCafeoffj AsifsJunt Secnsai}' pF Ite; Sinatt; Jg JolinBoi^ Asslsinn!: FOM, Offipaj BUBS ;L>, MI>SSO?4 Asslislnnt fCilA Difobt. .
Yu6 have tim liûht Us j a d i c b ] review o f this dcicisicsi pmuzxi^ ii^ S^ciori 11 f FOijAn P K I Dee 1.0 cotiuicil iii.a iil'jÛi biva mi)' (jUQSii.onji cr I may oiharvyTs^ be (iraisdiucee'.
'"-"ÊrleM^Wodlir
EMM?sia
Finally, instead of our Department of Justice assuring the American people that Obama is who he says he is, they represent or assist him in court to continue to block access to his vital records - more on this in the Obstruction of Justice Chapter. Millions of Americans, including soldiers. Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen, have doubts as well as evidenced by the many polls regarding Obama's birth place. A majority does not know where he was born or if he's a legal President. The DOJ fails to state that Obama had been vetted by the government; they instead agree and site the unlawful ruling made by Judge James Robertson which states the citizenry (who has absolutely no access to any of Obama's records) had vetted Obama through blogs and Twitter. See DOJ citation below.
Strunk v. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security

Case No. l:08-CV-02234 (RJL) ' Stmnk's allegations appear to be grounded in a widely discredited conspiracy theoiy asserting that the President was not bom in die United States and/or is otherwise not a United States citizen. As recently obsei-ved by Judge James Robertson, this theory was "raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and othewise massaged by America's vigilant citizemy diuing Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency," Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 180
The DOJ states that they are not responsible for vetting alleged fraud crimes relating to Obama's Constitutional qualifications even though they are. look at the DOJ's website for crimes they investigate. The DOJ instead states the Federal Election Commission is responsible for investigating which is untrue. See next page for letter that will also be filed under the Obstruction Chapter. See below for list of crimes that the FBI, which is under the DOJ, investigates. From the page What w e investigate -Criminal Priorities 4. Public Corruption - Government Fraud - Election Fraud - Foreign Corrupt Practices http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate
U.S. Department of Justice

E.xecutivc OITicc Ibr United Stales Attomeys
General Counsel's OJpce
Wa.Mngton. D.C. 20530
F B -4 2 0 E 09
This responds to your January 13, 2009 faxed letters to President George W. Bush and Patrick Fitzgerald at the Office of Special Counsel in which you ask bolh men to investigate President Barack Obama for treason, forgery, and campaign finance fraud. Because of the nature ofyour request, your letter vvas forwarded lo the Executive OfTice for United Stales Attorneys, Department of Justice, for a response. Your letter conlains many allegations questioning the nationality and citizenship status of President Barack Obama, and therefore, the potential illegality of his presidency. The crimes which you directly or indirectly accuse Presidenl Obama of committing include forgery of his Hawaii birth certificate, using a campaign operative to forge his passport documenls, and the illegal acceptance of campaign funds from foreign contributors. While these allegations warrant an investigation, they have been directed lo the wrong agency. You may wish to report these allegations of campaign finance fraud to the Federal Election Commission. You can find their telephone number online or you may write to the FEC at the following address: Federal Election Commission 999 E Slreel N.W. Washinglon, DC 20463 We appreciate the involvement of citizens such as yourself who lake an active interest in their government. Sincerely,
Jay Macklin General Counsel
I f t h e FBI would have done a background investigation on Obama, just on public records alone, they would have found a highly suspect background check results of Obama which would have merited looking into for potential money laundering and other fraud crimes. Author includes full list of names and address of the following report so that other researchers may be able to shed some light on this report that closely mirrors the report given by Neil Sankey, a California licensed private investigator and a former Scotland Yard detective. Many of these entries disappeared after they were made public. More on this in the Obstruction Chapter.
Document 84-2
Filed 10/11/2009
Page 1 of 11
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attomey-at-Law (Califomia SBN 223433) Orly Taitz Law Offices 26302 La Paz, Suite 211 Mission Viejo, Califomia 92691 Telephone: (949) 683-5411 E-Mail: dr taitz@yahoo.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION Captain Pamela Bamett, et al., Plaintiffs,
V.

Civil Action:
Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and President of the Senate, Defendants.
SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
Affidavit of Susan Daniels 1. My name is Susan Elizabeth Daniels. I am over 18 years old, am of sound mind and t*ee of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition. 2. I ara a citizen of the United States of America, I am 68 years old and I was bom and raised in the State of Ohio. 3. I am licensed by the State of Ohio as a private investigator; I am president of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc., incorporated in March 1995, license number 65199565509. 4. 1 have personal knowledge of all the facts and circumstances described herein below and will testify in open court to all of the same. 5. I located the social security number for Barrack Hussein Obama and found that it was issued between 1977-1979 in the State of Connecticut.
Document 84-2
Filed 10/11/2009
Page 2 of 11
6. The social security number was used by Barrack Obama for numerous addresses in Chicago and it was the only social security number he used. 7. I investigatedfiirtherand verified that the number was issued in Connecticut by running the numbers before and after Barrack Obama's and found them also to have been issued in Connecticut between 1977-1979. 8. Further, the number assigned to Barrack Obama may have been assigned previously, as it appears to also be associated with someone bom in the year 1890. 9. The true and correct copies I personally obtained are attached.
10. r solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that all thc facts stated and circumstances described above ai^ true and comect statements. 11. I have not received any compensation for making this afifidavit. ^> , U / / ~ on t h i s ^ r ) day of
Further, Affiant saith naughy ^ Signed and executed in p T A ^ r A f t ^ September. 2009. -r-
Case 8:09-cv-0G082-DOC-AN
Docuinent 84-2
Filed 10/11/2009
Page 3 of 11
Susan Elizabeth Daniels appeared before me in person on this day of September, 2009, in K frfUuÂ (citv). /OUJjn (stale). U. (country) and having presented to me her driver's license and having been swom by me duly under oath and having been admonished that she did so under penalty of peijury, she did then and there depose herself and give the abovelisted statements in my presence in the form of his written affidavit. Specifically but witliout limitation, Susan Elizabeth Daniels did in my presence authenticate die documents attached here as a true and correct copy of the documents she obtained attd described in her affidavit
JotaryfHublic in the State of Ohio Business Address ofNotar>': 93^/ C^lhl4(î. l<^^fU^. OU' 09^
MARV A. FIEEO Notary Public, Slata ol 0\io My ComnDsalon EitpirES Feb. SS, iOt-f Recorded In Lako County
My Seal Appears Above this line. My Printed Name is:T)f{Ajf^ f\ (?t>e^4. license expires on: ^-^^^ ? -Z-O/t/ : my notarial commission or
o
Ol
CD O O
Ci
T3
DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES INVESTIGATIONS

9754THWING RD CHARDON, OH 44024-OOiDO
CO
c
(U
E o o
License Number: 65199565509 Is hereby granted %"Cla55 B License'^ to qperats as Private Investigator provider in accordance Witfi tile:pr6visions;Of Chapter 4749 of the Ohio Revised Code, subject to ali the provisions thereof and to the regulations of th|$ division. Valid from March 01, 2009 through March 01, 2010
<
I
o Q
CN 00
I
o o o
Henry Guzrrî], Oti Ohio Depatlntent of PubQc Safety
Waiiam F. Vadra, Jr., E Homeland Security
Directof
a >
05
OHIO
OPPUSUC
SAFETY
C a s e 8:09-cv-00D82-DOC-AN
Document 84-2
Filed 1 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9
P a g e 8 of 11
Standard People Searoh

53 ReconJe
tearch Crltsrte 4ame: OBAMA, BARACK City: CHICAGO State: tL ftiporlte OSAAfA BARACX IJfUY( AdSress 14 W ERIE ST CHICAC30 IL Si<m (POSSIBLE HIGH RISK) Coamy: Cook Riona: (312)731-1170 OSASSA BAiRACK HUSSSK S4S0 S EAST VIEW PARK F=K IJt CHICAGO IL 6D31!i ICapB R^MMtsd; OaSQQOO} - OSIJDPBOi CoTOty: Coalt NO ADDRESS REPOFTieO CHICAGO IU 80816 Rapontad: oansrzooa - oaneooos 180>ILASAULE CHICAGO IL 0801 (PO$lLe hiIGH RISK) Rsprntedt oartaccoB > oa/iaewB 1l!iO HLASA1 ST22D0 CHiCAQo iLeoeoi-z6ia (POSS6SLE HIGH RISK,) Ox It (S50e 1577.197B In CT oaa: oanwisei Aga: <ia U n d t a : (773|a-<t6Q9 !29 bsusd: 1877-1579 fn CT OOB: 0aW1961 AOR O DOB: 1GB1 Lsnillina: <773)684-<l909 $S711009 Pliono
RofMited: oaaoasm oeasiaooa
Wsf) It
OBATilA BARACK
Msp It
aafJtA BARACK HUSSEIN
RspoEtnfc Oaioiaosff - osmam

SMS e GRBcNaaooD AVE a* C C A O 0- eQ$t6>290e H CO (POSSIBLE HIGH RISK) Raportsd: ia!>1/20II7 - 04A1C0DS CajnUy: Cccl! S*iO S EAST VIEW P'ARK 1 ix CMCACO IL e0815-16 Ropoitat; 070006-03002008 CaimSn: Cook NO ACORESS RcPOtVTCO CHiCftGOin.0 R;iwit 03<9QS[B - 081000008 14 W ERIE ST lx CHICAGO IL 6C610 (POSSIBLE HIGH RISK) RapertBd: oinzmoos - 01/Dizrzoos CeuBly: Conk (Wn IP Aifelres3 RBportsd) 5046 S GRSmvOOD AV 47 CHICAGO IL e0315-2B0B (POSSIBLE H)t3H PISK) ReiMKtad: 07iB00 -11/150007 Comily : Cooh iaa N LA SALLE ST 2200N CHICAGO IL aostsuisoi (POSSIBLE HIOH RISK) Oapatied: 02/2007 060007 County: Cuch 14 W ERIE ST CHICAGO IL 60S1I>-5S97 (pOSSBLE HIGH RISK) Zx Mss It 2x m&fi II
OSAMA BARACK HUSSEIN
t i s u B * 1OT-1979 In CT
Ufidite ( ) a * e 9 mQ4 4Q
Lenmuia; <7T3)Ba<i-4BQB
OBAMA BARACK HUSSBN
iSs? It
15 2 testied: 1977.1979 In CT DOB: Osmn9S1 Age: 4&
OSAMA BARACK
OSAMA BARACK UAIVR
Map I
Oalk 0313)310-OC60
PtWPK CS12)7B1-ltT0
DOBcigSI
UROBWHA BARACK H
Msp It
l$ti<l: 1977-197B in CT DOBtOaiDI/ISSI A ^ : 4a
OBAMA BASWCKH
t t s u t A 1B77-1679 M CT
OBAMA BAAACX
landlhn;<312}r51-HTO
RB^tiinoda 12O1O004 - maaos
G-naR: botumagCaw.'nbgjtsom
C 6 A A BARACK
Document 84-2
2X
Filed 10/11/2009
Phono: (312)761-1170
Page 9 of 11
OOBc 19S1
(Mtt IP AiMies3 Rgpartetl)

S GREENVVOOOAV^ CMICACO K. 60S19-2li0B (P0SS3BLE HICH RISK) Usp II
ftaiKiitBit: mnoa iicooe

OBAIUA BARACK HU8SBN Camdy: Coo!k 7438 S a i C U O AVE 2 IX CHICAGO IL eOB49 Raputed: OSOeOtnS - 0SO6O005 Cotintr: Cook 34501 S E V W IK CHICAGO IL eOGIS RspertaH: OSQSSOOS - 0SO6O00S C r a m l j : Cook S4S01 E VIEW PAUK OBMSA SA3UCK HJSSEM Coumy: Co(A tfepit
K M a a : 1977-1979 in CT
LanStte: {773I6S4.4S09
(4425 issuatt 1S77-197S h CT DOB: a3AM/1961 A e s : 40
Limdllnc: (773)884-4a0
OBAUA BARACK HUSSEIN
blapll
Issusd: 1S77-197S In GT DOB: QBiQ4f11 Ago: 48
UsKilino: (773)684.4809
CHKô IL eeeis RspoitÂ oamnBaj osae/zaas (tafotbtt asae/ssas - osaBoaas

S4E0 E VSeN PARK 1 CHICAGO IL 60815 lx
Bx
m\
E^nsk botiafnsilllEMmbg.oam ngports rtente OSAMA B A m O C
E'^nait isnmssendell 3^FOd!9yjic$

[CIS
lil
It
Is&u3d: 1977-1979 In CT DOB: OQAMnSSI Aga: 48 IHI>4425 tDsusdt 1977-1070 in CT DOS: 03104/1BS1 A S B : 48
UndBia: (77316B4.48Iia
OaftMA BARACK HIiSSBN
Map II
LsRdlte: (773)604-4509
OBAMA SARACK
Coonly: Ccok S4S0 S EAST VIEW PARK 1 CHICAGO IL eOSt 5-5918 RESHHlsd: aVZOOS - 03O00S Coonty: Cook
IX IJbp B
OSAMA BARACK
imaEfiSRDST Sx CHICAGO IL 80515-4311 Rdptntsd: 12QiaO(M - 01140005 C w u t i : Cock 14 W B R E S T IX C H I C A ( IL e06S4-S397 (P0SSI6LE HIGH RISK) Rapoltaft IZBIOIMM - 01AZaC5 C o u n t i : CocIt (No IP AdOess Repgnsiq AOOrazs 10131/63BD ST CHICAGO IL 60615 RopQrte^ OTnO0& - 07<20IB County: Codt 101S1 53RD ST CHICAGO IL 60S1S Rspoitett 07/2003 - 071ZDII3 C d u n ^ CoeCc lx
Msp U
Landlhis: (773)363-1038
0 8 M ! A BflRACK
Map It
LsruHns: (312)751-1170
Ftianst (312)791-1170 M=s>s Itfap It lx

tj&ip It
D D K 1361 PlioiM UisiltaK (773)3e3-lS96
SSH1 DOB
m. M.
OBA&fiA BARACK
LfndDna: (773)363-1983
OBA9JA BARACK SEN
1741 E 71 ST ST lx CHKAOO IL 00349 Ruporiett 0Zn)1/2flO3 . CSiOtBSm CcaaAi: Cacb
UbpCt
Lsndlhia: (773)363-1985 RESOItad: 10020003 taniod: 1977-1979 In CT DOe: OaKM/tSBI A g K 48
IP address: 102.100.70.133 5450 S efiST VIEW I'ARK 1 CHICAGO IL0515-5910 RspOiteA 10^907 100002 Ceuniy: Coak 5450 3 EAST VIEW PARK 1 CHICAGO 0.E0S15 Rcpostai: 07/2002 0712002 County: Cook 5450 S EAST VIEW PARK 1 CHICAGO n. easts R s p o t s d : 07CIM12 - 07/2002 County: C m k 4X t<bp It lx Map It 1x M ^ i It
OBAiOA BARACK H
0 3 A U A BARACK H
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 S K In t .
OaAIJlA BARACK H
taaaa 1977-1979 ki CT MM4425 iBsneit 1S77-1979faiCT DOB: 0B/D4/1S61 A s s : 46 MBI-442S essiisd: 1977-1979 in CT DOS: 0(UQ4/10ei Agft: 40
OBAMA BARACKH
7430 S EUCLID AV 8x CHICAGO IL e0849.3B2S Rc^pntcd: OSSH/IOES - 11/1SOOOO CounQ: Conk S^Sa VIEW PA IX CHICAQO IL 6I!etS Rapmtsd: lOIOinSffl -10101/1839 C o m ^ CoDtt 54501 SE VIEJAT PK CHICAOO IL 6I1S lx
lUap It
SB4-4809
OBAMA GARACK H U S ^ N
tfiap R
LSKlline: (773)634.4009
nnjtUA B u D A r v UI'aoeiM
linn W
County: Cocft OBAMA BARAXH
Document 84-2
Filed 10/11/2009
Page 10 of 11
Msp It ^^9-4425 'bsuod: 1977-1079 In CT DOS: aBnse^ Agn 48 SS ) DOB G34'4a09
94901 SE VIEW PK lx CHICAGO IL 60616 R c v c i t n t : OSOt/ISeS -10^91/1999 GeiiBilfiCcc& S4!S0 S EAST VIEW PA 1 BK CHICA(30 L 60B15-6916 Rspoitcd: OaiDVigGB 10/01/1989 Coumy: t:ea1: 649788 PO CHICAGO IL eoe49 Raported: 09/01/1859 Coont:r:Cook lx
Hame OBAMA BARAOC H r4ap It
t4425 hmtrO: 1977-1979 h CT
DOB: oanungsi ACK B

HHV.4425 bsuact 1977-1979 In CT COS: 0904/1961 Ago: 49 .^4425 tssant: 1977-1979 ki CT OOG: 08J04/1981 A g t t 49 VM9.4426 tsstiad: l977-l97BInCT 29 Issusd: 1077-1979 In CT DOB: 08M>4/19$1 Agsc 48
634-4aC9 LsixlltnBC (7731684-4809
OBAMA Q A R A C K HUSSEIN
oeiVi/iss9
Map II
LsniUbiB: (773)664.4809
OBAIMA BARACK HUSSEIN
4979S PO QOX lx CHICAGO !L 80549 RBSOtsd: 00101/1039 - 09<O1/t0t9 CoBdy: Coak B4S79B PO CHICMSO IL 60940 Riiportal: 09/1999 - 03/1999 COBBty: Coak PO BOX 4979S CHICAGO IL 60849 RBIKirt9d: 0/ie99 - OfthSSS Coonty: Cook 2)62 E 71 ST ST CHICAGO IL 60949 Rcportsi]: OSW/1999 08O1/I999 C o t m ^ : Cook 1440 E 5 3 N D S T 1x CHICAGO IL 60818 Reportfid: OUM/IBaa (nf01/1SS9 Cotiw^; Cock S4501 E VIEW PARK CHICAGO IL 60615 RBportDd: 0E/ISB7 - 03/1997 Coam?: Cook
4ii l/ltipl
Lanidtns; (7731684-4809
OBAAIA BARACK H
Itl^lt
OBA&IA BARACK HUSSEIN
LandBw: (773)884-4809
OBA&tA BARACK SEN
dtapll
LsndltiK (773)363-1998
OBAttIA BARACK HUSSBN
Mtap B
Issuod: 1977-1979 En CT DOS: 08ID4/19S1 Ago: 48 40104425 b s u s d : 1977-1979 m CT
1an!na&: (773}ea4-4etiO
OBAlllA BARACK H
OBAMA BARACKH
545D1 SE VIEIIUPA Bx CHICAGO IL 60615-5M2 RBimlBd: I X m n W B -10/01/1994 Cotiaty:Coak 54501 SE VIEW PA 2x CHICAGO IL 60615 Rapolted: 1Qm/1S94 -10101/1694 County: Cooli 5450 S EAST VIEW PK 1 lx CHICAGO IL 80815 RBiMstBd: osiDinses - iDfOi/ies4 C t a m t j : Cook 5324 S KIMBARK AVE 1x CHICAGO IL 6D61S Roiwwted; 12RMrt993 - iaD1/1SS3 Catialy: Cook 5450 eASTVieW PK 1 tx CHICAGO IL 6061& Reported: 0001/1993 asiotnB93 Counly: Cook 7438 8ELICUDAVE CHICAGO IL 60849^828 RapOTta* oansas - 09/1883 Cmody: Cooft 5324 S KIMBARX AVE CHKWGO IL 60815-5287 2x
htap It
l3BU>cfe1lT-1979hCT DOS: 0era4/1S81 Agts 48 ^442$ tayacit 1977-1979 sn CT 0 0 6 : cem4/iaB1 Aga: 48 &SH/0C3 ttaV442S b e u s t t 1977-1079 In CT DOS: O a n a i Aes: 48
684-4808
OBAMA BARACK HUSSEIN Reports
I4?p It
Umillno: (773)6(M-4SI)9
PtiOISI
Hs.HS
Ntnps M3p It
1 i 1 I 1
m
OBAMA BARACKH
OBAMA BARACK HUSSBN
Msp It
IssatKt: 1977-1979 In CT o o a : 08104/1981 A ^ g : 48 MLH 1 t3suad: 1S77-1S7B In CT
UniSDis: (7781684-4809
OBAAIA BARACK
lUlap It
OBAUA BARACK
M=flt 3x Atspll
b s u n d : 1977-1979 tn CT amb-<i423 bsiisd: 1977-1079 In CT DOB: OSKM/ISei Agoc 48
OBAOtA BARACK H
Rapanoi: osnnnsso - i2n980

C o i m t ; : Cool< IN N 1x CHICAGO X 60B15 RgpoTtni: 01/1)1/1998 - 01/01/1989 C o u l l ^ Cocfe N IN CHiCAQO IL eOS1 tx
OBAAtA BARACK HUSSSN
lAapR
IssuBd: 11^-1979 (riCT DOS: OeilM/IOSI Age: S
Lsiilllns: (7731684-4809
^ ^ ^ ! ! ! * - *errj l o r a / T
Case 8:09-cv-0D082-DOC-AN
Document 84-2
tn
Filed 10/11/2009
Page 11 of 11
U U D : unnnfiam A Q K 4 0 542S S HARPER AV6 1N CHICAGO IL 60315 9442S IssiiBd: 1977-1979 In CT DOB: OaHM/ISSI Agtc 48
OBAMA BARACK KUSBBM
RcfKinctfc iai/i9es - loioi/ises

Ceanly; Coc&
K 2 9 S HARPER AVE 1N CHICAGO IL0$1j|-3S4e 3x
Map It
LsndBiB: (773I6B4-4B09
'2S
Msp It Issusd: 1977-1979 in CT DOB: 08AM/I9ei A g o : 48
OBAMA BARACKH
Rcpsiteifc cent/ises - wism

CQitirty: Coot
1440 E U N O ST CHICAGO IL 60815-4131 RnfOftatt 04HS8S -04/1VES Coimly: Ciooi; Address 54501 SEVW CHICAGO IL6aiS County: dsoX 5450 e VBSru PARK 1 CHICAGO L 60815 lx
OSAMA BARACKH
m p It
DOS] QS/ias1 Asoi: 4S 3SN f DOB Pliane 884.4809
OBAMA BARACKH
U=p It
Map It
-4425
l : 1BJ7.1979 m CT DOB: oanM/IOei Aga: 48
OBAltlA SIRACK H
County: CcoSt
QSAblA BARACK H MSO EASTV/O/VPARK 1 CHICAGO 1.60815 Coamy: Ccok Uap It
Isousdb 1977-1979 In CT
BHBV-442$
<33ue< 1977-1979 m CT O0S:08/1o1 AeB:4S
As laid out in the Cliapter - Never Vetted, It is absolutely clear that no one any official government position in Illinois or the Federal government has seen proof that Obama is even able to legally worl< in the United State, yet be a U.S. Senator or President.
PAMEU BARNETT'S ALTERNATIVE WRIT FOR A EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE AND FOR CONTINUANCE IN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TO BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING
Exhibit 11
T h e P a r t y for S o c i a l i s m a n d L i b e r a t i o n i s r u n n i n g c a n d i d a t e s in tlie
2012 P r e s i d e n t i a l E i e c t i o n s
V i c e Presiden
ri OsoriS
The Party for Socialism and Liberation is proud to announce that our party is fielding a slate of candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States in the 2012 elections.
PSL member and Howard University graduate Peta Lindsay is the PSL's presidential candidate. PSL member Yari Osorio, an immigrant from Colombia now living in New York City, is the vice-presidential candidate. The party also will run candidates in various cities across the country. To learn more about the PSL's participation in the 2012 elections, visit www.VotePSL.org.
Meet Peta Lindsay

Lindsay, 27, is a founding member of the PSL and a member ofthe PSL's Central Committee. For over a decade, she has helped lead countless demonstrations across the country against imperialist wars, racism, budget cuts, tuition hikes, police brutality, anti-LGBT bigotry, and in support of immigrant rights, women's rights and the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, and has been a tireless advocate for the rights of working people and for socialism.
Meet Yari Osorio

Osorio, 26, has helped to lead dozens of anti-war and anti-racist demonstrations in New York City and Washington, D.C. As a student at John Jay CUNY, he co-founded Justice in Action, a social justice club on campus, and helped organize for students' rights across CUNY campuses. He helped lead the PSL's campaign to stop the New York Police Department's racist "stop and frisk" policy targeting Black and Latino working-class communities.
ww'w.yotePiSi .org
C h i c a g o : 773-920-7590 W a s h i n g t o n , DlC : 202|234-2828 Nevv Y o r k : 212-694-8762 I Los A n g e l e s : 323-810-3380 Sail F r a n c i s c o : 415-821-6171
California's Feminist Socialist Political Party
search..
Home
National
California
About Us
PFP Nel
Contact Us
Membership
Articles
Calendar
HOITE
Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful"

I ^ Share this
TOPiM.i: tlic t\V()-PAR!Y ; Sy.stem
' Drop
i5S m
Fund the )vcrllirow of Capitnli.sm!
Join the Peace and Freedom Party's fund-raising campaign I Click here to drop $20.12 on us in 2012.
Posted on February 8, 2011 by the State Central Commilce The following press release and slalemeni were issued by the State Central Committee ol (he California Peace and Freedom Party on February 8, 2011. IVIEDIA RELEASE
UPCOMING EVENTS
Ongoing - Solidarity with Occupy Wall St.
February 8, 2012 For further information: CT. Weber (916) 422-5395 or (916) 320-9186
WE SUPPORT.
SECRETARY OF STATE UST OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES CALLED "UNLAWFUL" AFTER PARTY'S CANDIDATES LEFT OFF JUNE 5 PRIMARY BALLOT SACRAtwlENTO - The Secretary of State's office has omitted two of the four Presidential candidates on the Peace and Freedom Party's primary ballot - and the independent party is demanding to know why. A NEWS CONFERENCE is scheduled at 10 a.m. Thursday (2-9-12) al the SOS oftice (11th & 0 Streets) to provide details. Peace and Freedom Party State Chairperson C. T. Weber will be present. SOS Debra Bowen has yet to respond, and in a statemenl issued today, Weber cites Elections Code sections that specify how presidential primary candidates are supposed to be selected by the Secretary of State, and suggests that code sections covering other parties may have improperly been applied to the Peace and Freedom Party candidates. "No Secretary of State has ever overmled our party's report listing our primary candidates," says Weber, "until this mistaken decision by Secretary Bowen." He also cites a failure by the Secretary of State to consult party county chairs, as specifically required in the Elections Code, and accuses Bowen of failing to consider as required by law the letter submitted to her by Weber on behalf of the Peace and Freedom Party State Executive Committee that listed all four candidates for inclusion. In the list announced Monday night, Bowen included Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson on the ballot, but omitted Peta Lindsay and Stephen Durham. Weber was unable to get an explanation when he went to the Secretary of State's Sacramento office the next morning, and reports that officials in the office refused to divulge what criteria Bowen used to make her choices, who was present at the meeiing, where the criteria were developed, and whether Bowen herself was present at the meeting. Richard Becker of San Francisco, a spokesman for the Peta Lindsay campaign, calls the omission of her name "absolutely unjustifiable under the law." Subscribe Candidate Stephen Durham of New York City says "I strongly object to the attempt by the California Secretary of State to steal away the rights of those who want to vote for a bona (ide socialist feminist candidate for president." "Our voters are seriously considering four candidates, and they deserve to have the Secretary of State follow the law and list all four on the primary ballot," Weber said. Delivered by FeedBurner
SEE IT NOW!
WATCH THESE LIVE FEEDS Occupy Fresno Occupy Los Angeles Occupy Wall Street October 2011 Coalition (Washington)
PREAMBLE TO OUR BY-LAWS

The Peace and Freedom Party is an open, multi-tendency, movement-oriented socialist party. We are united in our common commitment to socialism, democracy, feminism and unionism and our common opposition to capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and elitism. These by-laws do not define socialism, nor do they identify the strategies and tactics of how to achieve socialism. We agree that socialism is necessary and that it will open up a democratic decisionmaking process for appropriate use of resources and distribution of labor.
UPDATES BY EMAIL
Subscribe to our email notification service and you will receive one email message each day there is an update to the front page.
^ Enter your email address:
DONATE
Support our work to build an alternative party! Make an online donation to the Peace and Freedom Party nowl ( Donato J
-30STATEMENT OF CT. WEBER, PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY CAUFORNIA STATE CHAIR February 8, 2012 Late on February 6th Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office released her list of candidates for
[Register
m VOTE I
SOCIAL NETWORKS
Or mail your check made out to "Peace and Freedom Party" to PO Box 24764, Oakland, CA, 94623. Thank you.
WHO'S ONLINE
We have 68 guests online
President of the United States who would appear on the primary election ballots of the various parties in the presidential preference section. Breaking the precedent of the previous 36 years, this list for the first time omits many or most of the candidates reported to her by the state chairs of some of the political parties, including two of the four candidates that I reported to her were found by our State Executive Committee to be serious seekers of the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. (While Stewart Alexander and Rocky Anderson were listed, Stephan Durham and Peta Lindsay were omitted.) Visiting her office yesterday, I found that her staff was determined to keep secret the criteria used by the Secretary of State in selecting her choices for the ballot, refused to tell me who attended the meeting at which the criteria were determined, refused to tell me whether Bowen was present at that meeting, and refused to justify in any way her omission of candidates who are clearly serious about obtaining the Peace and Freedom Party nomination, and generally considered serious candidates by party activists (and by their opponents). I was told, to my astonishment, that Bowen could list any names she pleased without any logical criteria at all. This is not what it says in the elections code. In fact, the Elections Code (section 6720) states that the Secretary of State shall include the names of candidates recognized throughout California as active candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for President. All four of the names submitted are in fact Ihose of candidates who are recognized, and have some support, from all areas of California, as well as various other parts of the country. This may not be apparent from reports in the commercial media, but Peace and Freedom Party activists have never depended on the commercial media for their information about presidential candidacies, as the commercial media rarely mention our candidates at all. The publications of various groups on the left, the blogs and websites and e-mail lists used by those on the left to communicate with each other, and communication at meetings and rallies through word-of-mouth and leaflets, are the "media" used by Peace and Freedom members to learn about the various candidates who seek our presidential nomination. It appears possible that the Secretary of State may have unlawfully developed a list of criteria for selecting recognized candidates that is the same for candidates in all parties. In fact, the criteria in the election code differ for each party. For example, coverage in the news media is a legal criterion in the American Independent Party (EC section 6520), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. Qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act is included in the criteria for the Democratic Party (EC seclion 6041), but is purposely omitted in the Peace and Freedom Party section of the code. The unjustifiable secrecy being maintained around Ihe Secretary of State's list of criteria may conceal the mistaken and unlawful development of a common list of criteria for all parties, and if this is the case, the Secretary of State should come clean, and admit the mistake, while adding the improperly omitted candidates to the list for the ballot. The Elections Code (section 6721) provides that the Secretary of State shall ask the Stato Chair and the County Chairs of the Peace and Freedom Party for information regarding presidential candidates, and states that any information they wish to submit "will be considered by the Secretary of State." In fact, in 2012, the Secretary of State failed to make this request of the various County Chairs, although their names and contact information are available to her, and obviously failed to consider the information submitted by the State Chair on behalf of the State Executive Committee of the party. This is not a choice available to the Secretary of State under the law, but is a lapse and a failure to follow the law. While those omitted may circulate petitions among Peace and Freedom Party voters to have their names added, this is a serious burden that is not supposed to be imposed on generally recognized candidates. It is highly unfair to list two of the recognized candidates, but force the other two of them to put in substantial work and money to obtain the primary ballot access the first two have without this work and expenditure. The Elections Code (section 6722) states that the Secretary of State may add to her announced selections after the announcement is made. I strongly urge Secretary of State Bowen to consider the information now being submitted to her office to demonstrate that all four of the candidates reported to her by our party as serious candidates are indeed serious candidates, and announce at the earliest possible date the addition of the two omitted candidates to the list of those who will appear on the ballot. I further urge Secretary of State Bowen, who was elected and re-elected as the candidate who would make the functioning of her office more transparent, to release her criteria for selecting candidates for the presidential preference primary, the names of those present when those criteria were developed, and how those criteria were used to select two but omit two others on the list submitted by the Peace and Freedom Party's elected leadership.-C.T. Weber, California State Chair, Peace and Freedom Party
Visit us on these networking and media sites. Facebook
TWItter
Mv Space
- ^ h YouTube
Photobucket
VOTER REGISTRATION
In California, voter registration is very important to political parties. The very existence of a political party as "ballot-qualified" is determined by the number of votes its statewide candidates receive or by the number of voters registered with the party. As the only feminist socialist political party on the California ballot, it is imperative that the Peace and Freedom Party continues as a qualified party. Quite simply, the Peace and Freedom Party will not be able to provide Californians with candidates that will represent us unless we register and vote Peace and Freedom. For more information about registering to vote in California, you can visit the Secretary of Slate's website.
RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY WEBSITE

List All Candidates (or Peace and Freedom Primary 2012 Campaion Beoins Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Called "Unlawful" A Proposal for Going National Peace and Freedom is Goinc Nationall Introducing Ihe Peace and Freedom Alliance 2011-12-18 Occupy Peace and Freedom? in Oakland Support These Ballot Measures Occupy Oakland & Organized Labor Plan to Shut Down Port Small Parties Sue to Block Prop. 14 Attacks Mislead the Public Forum on the Occupy Movement. November 12 in Los Angeles Workers and War. November S in Berkeley Citv of Oakland Special Election Let them fail: Kruqman agrees with Ruyle on solving the fiscal crisis, sort of
_ ,. Subject: From: To: Date:
tliis fact needs to be brought up -Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for ... ,. . Constitutional P. B. (pb_realestate@vahoo.com) cestrunck@yahoo.com; Monday, March 12, 2012 2:07 PM
Ed, talked with this Toni that received the email from the SOS and confirmed it was a true copy to him., she said she would get it notarized but as expected the leftist didn't come through. Ed will notarize this email for an exhibit, also is the flyer that is referred to on her website as an exhibit and the peace and freedom press release all attached. we need to show the ultra vires to get the judge to hear this before the ballot is finalized and the supplement is passed. pamela
Forwarded Message From: P. B. <pb_realestate@yahoo.com> To: Christopher Strunk <cestrunck@yahoo.com>; Edward C. Noonan <ednoonan7@gmail.com>; POLITCAL George Miller <microcapnnaven@aol.com> Cc: Mark Seidenbert <hakohen3@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:16 PM Subject: Email Proof the SOS vetted Peace and Freedom candidate for Constitutional
see below for proof of SOS vetting candidate for 2012 potus ballot for consitutional qualifications. Pamela
Forwarded Message From: Markham Robinson <mark@masterplanner.com> To: 'P. B.' <pb_realestate@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:53 PM Subject: RE: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino From: Kevin Akin [mailto:kevinakinl950@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:39 PM To: mark@masterplanner.com Subject: FW: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-def/ing response to Toni Mendocino Mark, I hope you will pardon me for using the AIP as a bogey-man in my e-mail to the Secretary of State's office. You really should have a copy of the e-mail (just below mine) from the Secretary of State's office to Toni
Mendocino. In it, they acknowledge assessing the constitutional qualifications ofa candidate, and excluding her from the ballot on this basis. Thought this might interest you! -Kevin
From: kevinakinl950@hotmaii.com To: constituent.affairs@sos.ca.gov Subject: Presidential candidates: Your office's strange law-defying response to Toni Mendocino Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:17:42 -0800 Dear anonymous person from Legislative and Constituent Affairs. I have received a much-forwarded copy of the e-mail below. I am a member of the Peace and Freedom Party California Executive Committee (and Chair of our National Organizing Committee), and have served three terms as State Chair. I am apparently more familiar with the Peace and Freedom Party sections of the Elections Code than whoever wrote this astonishing response to Ms. Mendocino. I am even more astonished by some ofthe oral responses we have received from various people in your office. For example, Charlene Castaneda (I think I got her name right) told one caller that the Secretary of State's decision on whom to include was "irreversible." This is clearly contrary to the plain language of the Elections Code: (EC6722) "Following this announcement, the Secretary of State may add to her or his selection, but she or he may not delete any candidate whose name appears on the announced list." What part of this sentence does your office not understand? The code says names may be added, but your office says they may not. It appears to have esraped your office's attention that different standards are found in the code section for each political party as to what names should be included. "Being referred to in the news media" is in fact included in a section ofthe Elections Code, but it is the section governing the American Independent Party (EC6520). This was intentionally not included in the Peace and Freedom Party section (EC6720). So holding a candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination to the standard set for the American Independent Party's candidates is clearly improper and unlawful. Federal Election Commission filings are mentioned - but not in the PFP section of the code. Several of our low-budget presidential nominees have not in fact had a campaign office, but in the past this did not keep them off the ballot presumably because the Secretary of State's staff read the Elections Code, and noted that this is not a requirement for PFP randidates. I am going to leave aside for the moment the question of Peta Lindsay. Let me take up Stephen Durham. At the time your announcement was made, he was a generally-recognized candidate for the PFP nomination throughout California (as you were correctly advised by State Chair CT. Weber). This is the ONLY hurdle he was supposed to clear, according to our section of the code. But by dragging in criteria from other parties' sections of the code, and doing a really sloppy job of research, you invented reasons to omit him. While he only filed with the FEC some hours before your announcement was made, he had in fact filed at the time the announcement was made. However, this was not really a requirement. At the time your announcement was made, he already had two premises (both the standard storefronts usually used in campaigns, one in Los Angeles and one in San Francisco ) that served as campaign offices. (He has others around the country as well.) But apparentiy no one in your office thought to call up his campaign and ask. I am sure they would have been happy to give you the addresses. Stephen Durham has a campaign website (though this is clearly not a legal requirement, as this code section was adopted in 1975, when no one at all had a website). You may find its address, and a link to it, on the Peace and Freedom Party website, along with links to the other three campaign websites. Could it actually be true that no one looked on our party website in their wonderfully exhaustive research?
No debates among Peace and Freedom Party candidates have yet taken place, and this has almost always been the case at this point on the presidential election year calendar. I am afraid you have confused us with the Republican Party. This is one reason why our code section does not mention participation in debates as a criterion. Several debates are now scheduled (three in April, for example), and it is understood that Stehen Durham will participate in some ofthose. I have already demonstrated that media coverage is not a requirement in our code section. But in fact, of course, Stephen Durham is mentioned in many media reports, and was from the date he announced his candidacy. Do your office computers not have a connection to Google? Mine does, and I can find an amazing number of reports, mentions, and even extensive articles. They are generally not in the billionnaires' newspapers, but that is not where Peace and Freedom Party members look for information about their presidential candidates. Whoever flubbed the job so shamefully in researching the legal criteria for Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary candidates also seems to have overlooked the most important part of this section of the code (EC6721, "Secretary of State to send letter to central committees." It says that the SoS is to send a letter by first-class mail to each Peace and Freedom Party County Central Committee (addresses easily available both from the various Registrars of Voters, and through various links on our website), by the 150th day before the primary election, "informing them that, while a response is not required, any information they wish to submit will be considered by the Secretary of State in the determination of candidates to be placed on the Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary ballot pursuant to Section 6720." Now that, I think, is as clear as anyone could make it. As it happens, I have been the County Chair ofthe Peace and Freedom Party in Riverside County for many years (though I hope to turn that over to someone else soon), and over the years I have received a number of such letters from previous Secretaries of State. But not this year. I didn't get such a letter, and none of my fellow county chairs around the state got such a letter. That is because the present Secretary of State either was ignorant of this code section, or decided to def/ it. No such letter was sent. Absent input from the various county central committees, the office of the Secretary of State apparently decided to just wing it - and crashed. Most of the county central committees would have advised the Secretary of State that there are four recognized candidates for our presidential nomination, and given their names. A few county central committees might have omitted one or another name, but the pattern would have been clear Let me just make a point about Peta Lindsay, the presidential candidate (who certainly has a very active campaign!) who is reportedly 27 years old. Her age is of course a factor in whether she is likely to gain the nomination, but that should be up to the voters and State Central Committee members who will make the decision. In actual fact, the very first presidential nominee of California's Peace and Freedom Party, back in 1968, was not yet 35 years of age. The Secretary of State at that time had the ballots printed without his name, and only the name ofthe Vice-Presidential candidate was on the ballot over the Peace and Freedom Party name to represent our slate of electors. But the Secretary of State did not put his heavy thumb on the scales in our intra-party consideration of whom to nominate. He accepted the slate of candidates for elector, and the Party's name went on the ballot. I understand that the Secretary of State won a lawsuit a while back (brought by some American Independent Party leaders) seeking to force her to review the actual constitutional qualifications of various parties' nominees. She won, on the basis that it is up to the parties to select their nominees and do their own consideration of constitutional eligibility, and no business of the Secretary of State. Now the Secretary of State has taken the opposite tack, which I would think would open up this whole question again. I have already received reports that the AIP is delighted that the SoS has been so foolish as to reveal, in writing, that she does in fact look at constitutional eligibility - when it suits her You may be sure that next time the birthers in the AIP bring suit, they will be armed with full information about the Peta Lindsay case, proving that the SoS only takes that position when she likes. You would be far wiser to accept the fact that Peta Lindsay is a serious and generally recognized candidate for our nomination, and go ahead and list her. As your response to Ms. Mendocino was (rather strangely) anonymous, I do not know who wrote or sent
it. So I am sending this e-mail to the same address from which it came, and also sending blind copies to at least a dozen other people who work in the Secretary of State's office, in hopes that someone will read it and respond to me. I would truly appreciate being advised that someone has, at last, read the relevant sections of the Elections Code, and recognized that the Secretary of State may add to the list of presidential preference candidates she is putting on the ballot. While the campaigns are preparing to demand ballot placement through petition, this is a big burden that they don't need. It should be perfectly clear by now, to any but the most wrong-headed and stubborn, that all four candidates are in fact recognized throughout California as candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. This is the only requirement in the Elections Code, and the two omitted candidates should be added. I would appreciate a response. Executive Committee Kevin Akin 20212 Harvard Way Riverside, California 92507 home (951) 787-0318 cell (951) 675-2813 kevinakinl950@hotmail.com -Kevin Akin, member of the Peace and Freedom Party California
Forwarded Message From: "Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs" <Constituent.Affairs(5jsos.ca.gov> To: t mendicino(5)vahoo.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now!
Dear Ms. Mendicino: Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State about the individuals in the Peace and Freedom Party who were not included in the Secretary of State's Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates List for the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election. To determine whether a person is "generally recognized" as actively running for president, the Secretary of State's office looks at whether a candidate is actively running a presidential campaign, such as having a campaign office, a campaign website, making Federal Election Commission filings, partcipating in debates, and being referred to in the news media. Absent embarking on or completing any of these basic tasks, a person certainly could not be considered a "generally recognized" candidate. In addition, the Secretary of State's office reviewed Peta Lindsay's website where the candidate states she is 27 years old. Since the United States Constitution states "...neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years...", Peta Lindsay does not qualify as a presidential candidate forthe June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.
People in any political party who still wish to be included on the California ballot as a presidential candidate may circulate nomination petitions, the procedure for which is included in the Qualification and Requirements document, found on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/lune-primarv/pdf/minor-partv-president-2012.pdf The Secretary of State takes very seriously the responsibility of ensuring the integrity ofthe ballot and the entire electoral process is maintained. Sincerely, Legislative and Constituent Affairs Secretary of State
From: Toni Mendicino rmailto:t mendicino(g)vahoo.com1 Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:36 PM To: Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs Cc: Secretary of State Bowen Subject: Reinstate Peace and Freedom Party candidates now! Dear Secretary of State Bowen, I spoke on February 9 with your analyst Philly Crosby about this matter, rather unsatisfactorily; she instructed me to send you a letter. I am the Bay Area Freedom Socialist 2012 Presidential Campaign coordinator and strongly protest your exclusion of our candidate, Stephen Durham, from the Peace and Freedom Party primary ballot, along with Peta Lindsay. An egregious mistal<e has been made by your office in this decision and I urge you to rectify it immediately as is in your legal purview and as is your responsibility as the Secretary of State. Our candidate most certainly does meet the California election code criteria and has the full backing of the Peace and Freedom Party. We have not received an explanation for your arbitrary decision despite numerous inquiries, which is frankly unacceptable. I also request that I be given a response about how and when you will reverse this illegal action. What you did violated our rights as working people to vote for the candidates we support and is part of a national context of attempts to deny the right to vote to millions of poor, working and immigrant people. Do you really want to be on that side of history? This situation is particularly ironic given your 2011 Congressional race slogan, "Democracy For /Ml, Right Here in America !" I hope you will do the right thing and list all the Peace and Freedom Party candidates on the ballot, and I look forward to hearing back from you about this timely issue.
Sincerely, Toni Mendicino Bay Area Freedom Socialist Party and Campaign Coordinator 415-730-2917 (cell) P Save the Earth, one page at a time. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Exhibit 12
http://puzol.blogspot.com/2012/02/aU-that-is-vvrong-with-georgia-state.html All That Is Wrong vvith Georgia State Judge Michael M. IVlalihi's Decision that Putative President Obama Is a "Natural Born Citizen"
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. iVlalihi's Decision that Putative President Obama Is a "Natural Bom Citizen" By iVlario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleasevourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/iudge-malihi-niles-against-plaintiffs.html. 1 must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law. The Court held: "For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was bom in thc United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural bom citizen." But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was bom in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to "consider[]" that Obama was bom in the United States. The judge "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. What does "considered" mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word "considered" is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama's place of birth. We also know frorn the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs' documents introduced into evidence were "of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs allegations." Surely, the court did not use those "insufficient" documents as evidence of Obama's place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice ofany evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the mies of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone's place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is bom in the United States? The answer is none. The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article 11 "natural bom Citizen," but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Govemor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a "natural born Citizen." The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a "natural born Citizen." The court's decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Presidendal eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." See U.S. Tenn Limits, Inc. v. Thomton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 1 of 9
authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning ofa "natural born Citizen" is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a "natural born Citizen." But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II "natural bom Citizen." Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a "natural born Citizen," the decision itself should be rejected on its merits. The Constitution's text does not define a "natural bom Citizen." Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders' and Framers" original intent was in including the "natural born" Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional constmction that we can leam what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section I. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders' and Framers' intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers iniended when they wrote the "natural bom Citizen" clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders' and Framers' intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a "natural born" Citizen is has no historical or legal support. The Founders and Framers placed their tmst in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modem world. They knew from studying this histoi7 and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders' and Framers' favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (Ist ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a "natural bom Citizen" is. There he said that the "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those bom in the country, of parents who are citizens." The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws ofthe United States." The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court's mling as to what a "natural born Citizen" is. Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a "natural born Citizen" because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. "The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress's understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document's adoption. One author has noted that of the "Committee of Eleven," which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. February 3, 2012 on the Malihi Georgia Decision Page 2 of 9
of being a "natural bom" citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term "natural bom" by statute by the Congress." Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Bom Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child bom in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II "natural bom Citizen." These acts treated children bora in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children bom abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 "natural born citizens" and then in 1795 and thereafter "citizens of the United States." By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child bom in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the "natural bom citizen." Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural bom citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment bom "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor told us that there is no doubt who a "natural bom Citizen" is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English cominon law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to detennine eligibility to be President. On the other hand. Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a "citizen." The Framers gave Congress the power to make future "citizens ofthe United States" through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future "natural bom Citizen," not over the definition making the child of those parents a "natural bom Citizen." It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a "citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became "common-law" (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a "natural-born citizen" that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a "natural-bom citizen") could not have been English common law but rather was Ainerican common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it "contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the "natural bom" Citizen clause. Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concemed whether Wong Kim Ark was a "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a "citizen of the United States." But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark mled Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural bom Citizen" rather than a "citizen of the United States." Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II "natural bom Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a "natural bom Citizen." Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a "natural bom Citizen," the U.S. government would not
have argued that he was not even a "citizen ofthe United States," let alone a "natural born Citizen." Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a "natural bom Citizen" in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a "natural bom Citizen" is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a "natural bom Citizen" and which ironically confirmed Vattel's definition of a "natural bom Citizen" as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875. Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment bom "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article 1 1 "natural bom Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article 11 "natural bom Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a "natural bom citizen" when it only declared him a "citizen" of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a 'natural bom Citizen' using the Consdtution's Article II language is immaterial." This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child bom in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are "citizens," only the latter is a "natural born Citizen." Wong said: "The child of an alien, if bom in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-bom child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' p. 22, note." Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney's 1853 pamphlet on citizenship). Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II "natural bom Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constimdon are clear in distinguishing between a "natural bom Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States." The text ofthe Fourteenth Amendment defines a "citizen ofthe United States," not a "natural born Citizen." Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II "natural bom Citizen." We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a "natural bom Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States." Just ruling someone to be a "citizen of the United States" does not necessarily mean that the person is a "natural born Citizen," for "citizens of the United States" are made up of "natural born Citizens" and naturalized "citizens of the United States." The latter are naturalized either "at birth" or after birth. "Natural born Citizens" are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was "by virtue ofthe first clause of the fourteenth amendment." Wong Kim Ark, at 686. Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli mle but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was bom in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if bom a British subject and ifhe continued that nadonal character as of the time of his son's birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during
minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Jusfice Story put forth the English cominon law jus soli mle for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an "Ainerican citizen" regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story's opinion and reliance on the English common law. Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott V. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a "natural-bom citizen" as a child born in a country to citizen parents. Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II "natural bom Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American cominon law to do so. Ankeny said: "Although President Arthur's status as a natural bom citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was bom in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument v/as not made that because Arthur's father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be Presidenl." But the courl provided no evidence lhat anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was bom, he was bom to an alien falher. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur's father when he was bom was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another. Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7lh Cir. 1983) in support of its definilion of a "natural bom Cifizen" when the quesfion ofthe meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the courl would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and nol give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of a "naturalborn citizen" in Minor. The pro se plainfiffs in Ankeny claimed, among olher things, lhat Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said that "persons bom within the borders of the United States are 'natural bom Cifizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless ofthe citizenship of their parents...." The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaini on defendants' mofion that on ils face plaintiffs' complaint failed to stale a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after il went through ils explanation as lo what a "natural bom Citizen" is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs' case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was bom in the United States (it called that claim a "non-factual assertionQ") and that even ifhe were so bom he still fails lo meel the legal definition ofa "natural born Cifizen," it neilher held lhal Obama was bom in the United Stales nor lhal he is a "natural bom Citizen." In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court lhat Obama was bom in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was bom in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a "natural bom Citizen" is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never mled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented lo the court whether he was "bom wilhin the borders of the Uniied Slates." The court never even examined that issue. Hence, ils statement lhal "persons bom wilhin the borders of the United Slates are 'natural bom Citizens' for Article II, Seclion 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents" does nol prove that Obama was, in fact, bom within the borders of the United States" and that he is Iherefore a "natural bom Citizen."
Ankeny was advisory on the "natural bom Citizen" issue because it gave us ils definilion ofa "natural bom Citizen" bul never applied lhal definilion lo Obama's personal situation, ll resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply lhal law lo the facts. It needed to find that Obama was bom in the United States and that he was thus a "natural born Citizen" lo give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was bom in the Uniied Slates. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on whal is a "natural bom Citizen" is purely advisory. To conclude lhal plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court's mling as to what a "natural bom Citizen" is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible lo be President. The quesfion of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bul in order to make any conclusion as to whether plainfiffs adequately challenged Obama's eligibility, given the fact that on a motion lo dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to "view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference constmed in the nonmovant's favor, and given the court's own definition of whal is a "natural bom Citizen," the court had lo examine whether Obama was "bom wilhin the borders ofthe United Slates." This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the quesfion ofthe legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaini by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence oulside the complaini (e.g. a birth certificale) which means thai the courl would have had lo convert the motion to dismiss lo one for summary judginent. Bul nol only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact bom in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court's own words, the citizenship of Obama's parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its "natural bom Citizen" test, that Obama was born in the United Slates, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure lo stale a claim withoul any evidence lhal Obama was bom in the United Slates. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure lo slate a claim? Rather, whal the court did is just by way of advisory opinion lell us whal il believes lo be a "natural bom Cifizen" without applying its definition lo the quesfion of whether Obama is conslitulionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given ils definition of a "natural born Citizen," il would have ended the live controversy. It did not do lhal so ils opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolufion. Lastly, if the court's decision had nol been advisory, the nation today would know whelher Obama was or was not bom "within the borders ofthe Uniied States." The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued lhal place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent arguinent. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was bom in the Uniied States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude lhal plaintiffs did nol slate a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama's eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint lo give the nonmoving party every reasonable inference. 1 cannoi imagine, given lhat the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United Stales, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is lo give the non-movanl the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the courl not treating a complaini lhal says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parfies the opportunity to amend their complaint. The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent slate ground. There was no need for the court lo journey into the waters of whal an Article II "natural bom Citizen" is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on whal a "natural bom Citizen" is as il pertains to persons bom in the
United Slates, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the quesiion of whelher someone born oul ofthe United Slates can be a "natural bom" Citizen was nol before il, its decision should not be interpreted lo mean that being bom in the Uniied States is the only way someone can be a "natural bom Cifizen." As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion lhat Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a "natural bom Cifizen." Such a posifion is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitufion contains both "natural bom Citizens" and "citizens of the Uniied Stales" and lhat the Wong holding did nol include "natural bom Citizen." So, any citation to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a "natural bom Citizen" when il had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whelher a child bom in the U.S. to alien parents was a "citizen" under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment, ll also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a "natural born Cifizen." Bul Justice Gray only held that Wong was a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held lhat he was a "natural born Citizen." So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a "natural born Citizen" is. In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett's definition ofthe clause which was a child bom in the couniry to citizen parents. Judge Malihi finds that Obama "became a citizen al birth and is a natural born citizen." What he is saying is lhat by the mere fact lhat Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a "natural bom Citizen." Bul this is nol the definition of a "natural born citizen." Judge Malihi's definifion must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is "natural bom Citizen," not "bom Citizen." The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that il cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural bom Cifizen" which means a child bom in the couniry lo citizen parents. The Founders and Framers looked for a cifizenship standard that would assure them that the Presidenl and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test lhat depended only upon when a child became a cifizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would nol say anything of how the child would be reared. But a lest that included lo whom a child was bom and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a "natural born citizen" could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural componenis which were that the child would have to be born in the couniry lo citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a "natural bom Citizen" under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted. A "born cifizen," "cifizen al birth," "citizen by birth" or "citizen from birth," ifhe or she does not satisfy this original American common law definifion, is an Article II "Cifizen of the United States" as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acl, or treaty, but not an Article II "natural bom Citizen" as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a "bom . . . citizen ofthe Uniied States" under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person bom in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiciion thereof" As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parents requirement, bul there is a "subject lo the jurisdiction thereof requirement. In contradistinction, in the "natural bom Citizen" definition, there is a citizen parents requirement, but there is no "subject to the jurisdiciion thereof requirement, for being born in the country lo citizen parents, such a child could not be bom olher than
"subject to the jurisdiciion" of the Uniied States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone lo become a member of the United Stales and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need lo require citizen parents bul at least lo require that thc child be born "subjeci lo the jurisdiciion" of the United Slates. Since a child that is bom in the United Stales lo cifizen parents will always be bom "subject to the jurisdiciion" of the United Stales, we do not engage in "jurisdiciion" analysis when exploring whether one is a "natural bom Citizen," but rather just look lo see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no "subject to the jurisdiciion" analysis when examining Virginia Minor's citizenship slalus. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Acl) "bom . . . citizen of the Uniied Stales" can be bom in the Uniied Slates to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instmcts that we must do a "subjeci lo the jurisdicfion" analysis which is whal it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fiindamental constitutional difference between an Article II "natural bom Citizen," who is bom within the sole, full, and complete legaL political, and military allegiance and jurisdicfion and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment "bom . . . citizen of the Uniied Slates" who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and cifizenship. If any "bom citizen," "citizen at birth," "citizen by birth" or "citizen from birlh" does nol satisfy the "natural bom Cifizen" definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a "natural bom Citizen" to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just lake an Arlicle 11 "Citizen ofthe United States" as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acl and convert that person into an Arficle II "natural bom Citizen" as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to mainlain lhat he or she is an Article 11 "natural bom Citizen," then let he or she prove il under the lime-honored definition of the clause. Lel us nol accepl lhal the definition of an Article 11 "natural bom Citizen" has somehow been changed to some olher phrase such as a "citizen at birth" or "citizen by birth" wilhout seeing any evidence of lhat ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen ofthe United States" and convert that person inlo an Article II "natural bom Cifizen." The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and longstanding definition ofa "natural born Citizen," nol on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them. So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact "natural born Citizen" clause only one definition and that is a child bom in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. V. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means lhat only a child bom in the United States lo two parents who are either Article II "natural born Citizens" or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory "born or naturalized . . . citizens of the Uniied States" is an Article II "natural bom Cifizen." This is the consensus opinion of a "natural born Citizen" as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequenfiy, a "Citizen oflhe United Stales" is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other posilive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment "bom . . . citizen of the United States" may be bom with dual and divided allegiance lo the United Slates, an Article II "natural bom Cifizen" is born only within the sole, fiill, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United Stales. A "natural bom Citizen" includes all those who are bom with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a "citizen," "native-bom citizen," "bom Citizen," or "citizen of the Uniied States" who is not a "natural born Citizen" can be born with foreign allegiance but through posifive law is nevertheless naturalized lo be a "cifizen of the Uniied States" eilher at birth or after birlh. Hence, a "natural born Citizen" has only one definition which vvas recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Courl, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the couniry lo cifizen parents. Satisfying this definifion removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus
soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is bom wilh no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the Uniied States. Consequently, all "natural bom Citizen[s]" are "citizens of the United States," bul nol all "citizens of the Uniied Slates" are "natural bom Cilizen[s]." Therefore, any "bom . . . citizen of thc United Stales" under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show lhal he or she satisfies the Ainerican common law definition of a "natural bom Citizen" in order lo be considered a "natural bom Citizen." Failing to make lhal showing, a "born" or "native bom" citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just lhal but not an Article II "natural bom Citizen." Judge Malihi has nol made anyfindingsof fact conceming the question of where Obama was bom. Obama the candidate wants lo be Presidenl again. Under Arlicle II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof lo conclusively prove that he is a "natural born Citizen." As part of lhal burden, he has lo conclusively prove that he was bom in the United Slates. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing lo presenl any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs' documentary evidence to be insufficienl for whaiever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama's alleged long form birth certificate, lo be sufficient to prove lhal Obama was bom in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi lhat Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove lhat he was bom in the United Stales. Judge Malihi said lhal he "considered" that Obama was bom in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was bom in the United Stales. Clearly, "considered" does not mean found. Since Obama failed to cairy his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi's decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secreiary of State should reject Judge Malihi's decision and rule on his own that Obama nol be placed on the primary ballot. Should the Georgia Secreiary of Stale find lhal there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was bom in the Uniied Slates, then he can slill find lhat Obama is slill nol a "natural born Citizen." We have seen lhal Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes lo the definition of an Arlicle II "natural born Citizen." He fails in nol giving controlling effecl to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a "natural born citizen." Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to lhal incorrect reading. The limehonored American common law definition of the clause is a child bom in the country lo citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was bom to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British cifizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being bom to an alien falher, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nafionality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was nol born in the full and complete legal, political, and mililary allegiance and jurisdiction of the United Stales. He is Iherefore not an Article II "natural bom Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Febmary 3, 2012 hltp://puzol .blogspot.com/ #### Copyright 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved
Exhibit 13
FILED
O.SA(l
O F F I C E O F S T A T E ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF GEORGIA DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY, THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH, Plainfiffs, v. BARACK OBAMA, Defendarit.
FEB 0 3 2 1 02
Weik RiilV. LcMfil iVsbisliiiU
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-MALIHI Counsel for PlaintifTs: Orly Taitz Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
DAVID P. WELDEN, Plaintiff,

V.
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215137-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. Irion
BARACK OBAMA, Counsel for Defendanl: Michael Jablonski Defendant.
CARL SWENSSON, Plaintiff, v. Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield BARACK OBAMA, Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant. Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216218-60-MALIHI
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL, Plainfiff, v. Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield BARACK OBAMA, Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant. Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216823-60-MALrHI
DECISION'
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant President Barack Obama does not meet Georgia's eligibility requirements for candidacy in Georgia's 2012 presidential primary election. Georgia law mandates that candidates meet constitutional and statutory requirements for the office that they seek. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(ai). Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal .office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore rnust, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States. Id. The United States Constitution requires that a President be a "natural born [c]itizen." U.S. Const, art. II, 1, cl. 5. As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs' challenges to this Court for a hearing. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on January 26, 2012. .The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden ahd his counsel Van R. Irion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Coiirt would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 6I6-l-2-.30(l) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the
' This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.
Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaititiffs' request. By deciding this niatter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attomey, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.
I.
Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth contend that President Barack
Obaiiia is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention. Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use his legal name on his notice of candidacy, which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (Pl.s' Am. Compl. 3.) At the hearing. Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses^ and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. Regs. 616-l-2-.18(l)-(9). The weight & to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. &. Regs. 616-1-2^.18(10). The Courtfindsthe testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations.'' Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony fi-om several of the
witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth
^ Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was swom and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz step-down and submit any further testimony in writing. The credibility of witnesses is within tlie sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-jury cases that discretion lies with the judge. See Mustang Tramp., Inc. v. W.W. Lowe & Sons, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 350, 352(19.71).
certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social securityfi-aud,or fi-aud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qiialifications as such must befirstproved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Courtfindsthat none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsarisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.
II.
Application of the "Natural Bom Citizen" Requirement Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural bom citizen of the
United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary election. As indicated supra, the United States Constitution states that "[n]o person except a natural bom Citizen... shall be eligible for the Office of the President . . . ."^ U.S. Const, art. U, 1, cl. 5. For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was bom in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States cifizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree. In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president becausis he is not a natural bom citizen. Jd. at 681. The plainfiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear distincfion between a 'cifizen of the United States' and a 'natural bom Cifizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. cifizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was
" The definition of this clause has been the source of much debate. See, e.g., Gordon, IVho Can Be Presidenl of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 2i Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)j Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988); Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning ofthe Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349 (2000); William T. Han, Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010).
ineligible, stating that children bom within the United States are natural bom citizens, regardless of the cifizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Couitfindsthe decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempring to ascertain the definition of "natural bom citizen" because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685-86; See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) ("The Consfitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural bom citizens. Resort musf be had elsewhere to ascertain that."); see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (noting that the only mention of the term "natural bom citizen" in the Consfitution is in Article II, and the term is not defined in the Constitufion). The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (na:tural bom citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be bom or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685 (cifing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const, amend. XIV, I. ("All persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdicfion thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . . " ) . In Minor, the Court observed that: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which thefi-amersof the Consfitufion were familiar, it was never doubted thait all children bom in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, cifizens also. These were natives, or natural-bom citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children bom within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to thefirst.For the purposes ofthis case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id: at 167-68. Plainfiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court's decision in Minor as defining natural bom citizens as only "children bom in a coimtry of parents who were its
citizens." 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural bom citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children bom in a country pf parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural bom, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child bom within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural bom citizen. Next, the Indiana Court looked td United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the \yords "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendmerit and "natural bom citizen of the United States" in Article ll to determine whether a child bom in the United States to parents who, at the fime of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of thefirstclause of the fourteenth amendment...." Id. at 686 (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to thefi-amersofthe constitution." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that "[t]he interpretation of the
constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions areframedin the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (intemal citafion omitted). The Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was bom in the United States to alien parents.
became a citizen of the United States at thetimeof his birth.^ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705.
^ The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . aind were not restricted to natural-bom subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, bom in England, of such aliens, were therefore naUiral-bom subjects. But the children, bom within the realm, bf foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, bom during and witliin their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-bom subjects, because not bom within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King. 169 U.S. at 655. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and Continuing to the present day, aliens, vyhile residing in tlie dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were wiihin the allegiance, tlie obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child bom in England of alien parents was a natural-bom subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where tlie child was bom. Id. at 658. Further: Nothing is better setded at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, bom in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the govemment, and owing a iemporar>' allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. Id. at 660 (quoting Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J,, concurring)). And: The first section of the second article ofthe constitution uses the language, 'a natural-bom citizen,' It thus assumes that citizenship may:be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. Id. at 662 (quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 576 (1856) (Curtis, J., dissenting)). Finally: All persons bom in the allegiance ofthe king are natural-bora subjects, and all persons bora in the allegiance ofthe IJnited States are natural-bora citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the conimon law of this country, as well as of England. Id. at 662-63 (quoting United Slates v. Rhodes, (1866) (Mr. Justice Swayrie)).
Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons bom within the borders of the United States are "natural bom citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purpipses, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "bom within the British dominions [was] a natural-bom British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "bom in the alleigiance of the United States [] natural-bom citizens." 916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural bom cifizen if he was bom in the United States because he became a United States cifizen at birth.^ Fpr the purposes of thjs analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was bom in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a cifizen at birth and is a natural bom cifizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3"*, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
* This Court recognizes that the fVong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of "natural bom citizen" for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.
10
Exhibit 14
Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election (Revised February 28, 2012)
Barack Obama Obama for America PO Box 803638 Chicago, IL 60680 Phone: (312) 698-3670 Website: www.barackobama.com Newt Gingrich Newt 2012 PC Box 550769 Atlanta, GA 30355 Phone:(678) 973-2306 Website: www.newt.org FredKarger Fred Karger for President 2745 Woodstock Rd Los Angeles, CA 90046 Phone: (202) 365-2321 Websile: www.Fredkarger.com Ron Paul Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee 8000 Forbes PI, Sle 200 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: (703) 563-6620 Websile: www.ronpaul2012.com Charles E. "Buddy" Roemer, 111 Buddy Roemer for President PO Box 84877 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Phone: (603) 782-4812 Websile: www.buddvroemer.com Mitt Romney Mitt Romney for Presidenl PO Box 149756 Boston, MA 02114-9756 Phone:(857)288-3500 Website; www.mittromnev.com Rick Sanlorum Rick Santorum for President PO Box 37 Verona, PA 15147 Phone:(888)321-6675 Websile: www.ricksantorum.com Democratic
Republican
Republican
Republican
Republican
Republican
Republican
Page 1 of 3
Edward C. Noonan 1713 l l " ' Ave Olivehurst, CA 95961 Mad Max Riekse PO Box 82 Fruitport, MI 49415 Laurie Roth 2903 Maple St Longview, WA 98632 Roseanne Barr Roseanne for President 2012 214 Main Sl #293 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (646) 423-8383 Websile: www.roseanneforpresidenl.com Kent Mesplay Mesplay for Presidenl 5173 Waring Rd #204 San Diego, CA 92120 Email: info@mesplav.org Websile: www.mesplav.org Jill Stein Jill Stein for President PO Box 260217 Madison, Wl 53726-0217 Email: hq@iillstein.org Websile: www.iillstein.org Roger Gary lll9WAshby PI San Antonio, TX 78201 R. J. Harris 3334 W Main St Box 402 Norman, OK 73072 Gary Johnson 280 S 400 W Sle 220 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 American Independent
American Independent
American Independent
Green
Green
Green
Libertarian
Libertarian
Libertarian
Page 2 of 3
Scotl Keller 8754 Handel Loop Land O Lakes, FL 34637 James Ogle 715 9"'Sl Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Carl Person 325 W 45"' Sl Ste 201 New York, NY 10036-3803 Bill Still 44564 Blue Ridge Meadows Dr Ashbum,VA 20147 Barbara Joy Waymire 2710 County Rd 202 Tulelake, CA 96134-9286 Lee Wrights 109 Latigo Dr Burnet, TX 78611 Stewart Alexander 40485 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd #149 Murriela, CA 92563 Phone:(909)223-2067 Email: stewarlalexander4paf@ca.rr.com Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson 314 W 300 S Ste 225 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone:(801)990-5300 Phone: (801)557-9007 Email: rockvanderson.iustice@gmail.com Stephen Durham* 762 Riverside Dr., #3A New York, NY 10031 Phone: (206) 985-4621 Email: votesocialism@gmail.com Website: www.socialism.com Libertarian
Libertarian
Libertarian
Libertarian
Libertarian
Libertarian
Peace and Freedom
Peace and Freedom
Peace and Freedom
Added February 28, 2012, to the list of Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates
Page 3 of 3

Barnett ExParte Mar15 - 12

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Barnett ExParte Mar15 - 12

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 2 3 4 5

; i2MAR 15 P I,: 01, M .; , LEGAL PROCESS ^'f.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ^Ob^

1. That as a Preliminary statement Petitioner opposes Respondent Barack Obama's

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Heanng on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

to place on the ballot

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Attorney General; Insurance Commissioner; Member of the State Board of Equalization;

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

the Petition for Prerogative

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

to be President u n d e r t h e U.S. Constitution."

The allegation proffered by Respondent Obama's counsel in the Demurrer

That moreover, subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an

Senator Jon Kyi defers to the internet on December 1 , 2008 wrote:

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14'^ Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:

Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on

February 6, 2009 wrote:

inherent in each member's oath of office like that of the CA SOS.

Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama's contention of authority to

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Petitioner in light of the evidence herewith contends that for RESPONDENT

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

v e t t e d t h e presidential C o n s t i t u t i o n a l qualification f o r ballot access of Peace and F r e e d o m

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

from: 19166537635(g)vm.vonage.com to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) received Mon, 30

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

whether a presidential candidate is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Sworn to before me T h i s V ^ day of March 2012 ^ Notary 'Oublic ^

ANGELA TETER ? COMM. # 1885285 \

Barnett's Alternative Writ for Expedited Hearing on Merits and Continuance

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

DEBRA BOWEN | SECRETARY OF STATE

Summary of Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election

by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or by circulating nomination petitions.

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048

Maricopa County SherifTs Office Joe Arpaio, Sheriff

SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Additional findings by investigators

J Pjintut Seb... | Q MCSO P... |

' MARAZEBE.. [ T ' ShiflnlMsI|

C J ^.v.v.mcso.org Presjlelcjse.* Most Visited J 3 Video I Templatic Getting Started Q

2012 catifornia democratic (Urtycandidate

Obama State Ballot Ch...

te-/ious i i " Highlight 11 _i Mat^hcase

Noonan et al. against Bowen et al. Case No.34-2012-80001048