3.       INDONESIAN LAW

“Foreign persons under age of five who are adopted by Indonesian Citizens obtain Indonesian Citizenship following legalization of adoption process by District Court of general jurisdiction with jurisdiction over adoptive par­ents.” Indonesia Law 62 of 1958  Art. 2 (1), Sriro's Desk Reference of Indone­sian Law,  p 103

J.       Founders on Natural Born Citizen                                

            “Sketch of a plan of government which was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose ... in ... future discussion’”... Article IX Section 1: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, June 18, 1787, 3 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 617, 629.

            “What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him for­eign influences and intrigues.

            Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves cit­izens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.” Sen. Charles Pinckney, Re­cords Federal Convention 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800).

            “the president should be a natural born citizen ... Considering the greatness of the trust... these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have fre­quently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Lecture 13 Of the President (2.), Commentaries on American Law (1826-1830).

            “It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become presid­ent is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless intro­duced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the ponti­ficate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3 § 1473 on Art II § 1 Cl. 5 (1833)

K.     Barack Obama, on Ethics, Transparency & Open Government

            “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

            Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  In­formation maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Adminis­tration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose in­formation rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive de­partments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public. . . .” Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Ex­ecutive Departments and Agencies, The Whitehouse, Mon, January 26, 12:27 PM EST

L.           Natural Law, Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel

          "§ 212. Citizens and natives.

            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by cer­tain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fath­ers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in con­sequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the chil­dren; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."  Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, c.19, § 212.

          “§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

            “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are cit­izens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regula­tions must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.” Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, c.19, § 215.

            "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sit­ting." Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775.

M.   Extracts and authorities on the Rule of Law:

            The Declaration and Resolves, Continental Congress, Tansill 1--5 #2 (14 Oct. 1774) preserved ‘immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitu­tion and the several Charters.’ These included ‘rights, liberties, and immunities’ and ‘common law’ via their ancestors. Those Codes, Charters, Acts and ‘unalienable rights’ acknowledged God and were secured by swearing before God, commonly on the Bible. When King and Parliament breached their unalienable rights, the Colon­ies interposed, establishing the U.S.A. by the Declaration of Independence para. 2.

            Provide alternatives for the sake of conscience, whenever government touches religion, especially involving deeply held sectarian religious practices, like swearing before God.          SC Justice James Iredell defined the Oath as:

“a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a per­son who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the state of re­wards and punishments according to that form which would bind his con­science most,” 4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788).

            He described other forms of oaths for other religions.

 28 USC § 453, requires each Judge or Justice to “solemnly swear (or affirm) [to] ad­minister justice.” Alternatives to militia duty and union fees are provided for conscientious objectors and those with religious convictions. 10 USC 312b; 29 USC 169.

            The Magna Carta (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (U.S. 1776) were both secured before God by Oath or sacred pledge.

“Know that, having regard to God . . . Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit.” Magna Carta (1215).

“[W]ith a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Declaration of Independence (1776) para. 32.

The Constitution is secured by Oath or Affirmation:

“The Senators and Representatives . . . all members of the several state legis­latures and all executive and judicial officers . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.” U.S. Const. art. VI ¶ 3.

See also U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, ¶ 8; 5 USC 3331 Oath of Office, Story, J. Comment­aries, Ch. 43 §1837-1840.

The Oath is a religious act, based on biblical principles:

“Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instru­ments of investigation in courts of justice?" Washington, Farewell Address (1796).

N.         Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify

            Citizen David L. Hagen submitted to Congress the following Petition for re­dress of grievances that Barack Obama II failed to qualify to become President.

“Re: Petition for Point of order: Barack H. Obama II is not qualified to become pres­ident.

            Grievance: Barry Soetoro/a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II is not qualified to become president, having had primary allegiances to other nations, and not provid­ing unambiguous evidence he is a “natural born Citizen” without other allegiance, to satisfy the Constitution Article 2 Sect. 1.

            Prayer: By your oath to uphold the Constitution, your privilege to raise a Point of Order, by the 10th Amendment powers retained by We the People, and by the right of petition for redress of grievances, I pray that you cosign/raise an Objec­tion/Point of Order in Congress on January 8th 2009, with a member of the other House, on the reading of each State’s electoral certificates/of the total vote for Barack Hussein Obama II, per 3 USC Ch. 1, §15, §17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ( c) (1), namely:

            “We/I Object/raise a Point of Order that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not qualified to become president per the Constitution Article Two, §1, having “Foreign Allegiances” by birth and adoption, by renouncing US citizenship, and by failing to provide unambiguous evidence that he is “a natural born Citizen” without other al­legiance, election of a President who does qualify having precedence over other busi­ness of this House per Amend. 20 §3 and 3 USC 1. In particular:

            1  Mr. Obama having had conflicting “Foreign Allegiance”(s) cannot become Commander in Chief having sole allegiance to the USA, and thus cannot qualify as “a natural born Citizen”.

            1.1  Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Obama, has first allegiance to Indonesia, having Indonesian citizenship with renunciation of US citizenship, by adoption/leg­al acknowledgment by Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a citizen of Indonesia, per Consti­tution of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Art. 2 (1), as required to enroll in Indone­sian schools, per school records and travel to Pakistan in 1981; and

            1.2 Mr. Obama had first allegiance to the British Crown and to Kenya, being born a citizen of Kenya through his Kenyan birth father Barack Obama, Sr., per Chapter VI. Sections 87 and 97 of the Constitution of Kenya;”

O.     Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifica­tions  

* U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; ** U.S. Const. art. I, § 3; *** U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; +U.S. Const. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements

*14 CFR 61(E) FAR61.102; **14 CFR 61(F)FAR61.123; *** 14 CFR 61(G) FAR61.153

Q.     Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants

Historians and experts estimate that some 100-176 million people were executed or starved by dictators and tyrants - in the 20th century. E.g., typical ranges from Ha­gen & Irish (2000):

     Murder by Government

      Tyrant                 Civilians killed

Mao Tse-tung, China                50-70 million

Stalin, USSR                            20-40 million

Hitler, Europe                           10-20 million

Lenin, USSR                            4 million

Talaat Pasha, Turkey                2 million

Sudan Arab vs Nebo                2 million

Franco, Spain                           2 million

Pol Pot, Cambodia                   1.7 million

Kim Il-sung, N. Korea  1 million?

Mengistu, Ethiopia                    1 million

Sukarno, Indonesia                   0.6-1 million

Rawanda Hutu v. Tutsi  800,000

Tito, Yugoslavia                        500,000

Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam  200,000

Milosovic, Yugoslavia   200,000

Nehru-Gandhi, India                 200,000

            The greatest danger to the People and the USA is not ex­tern­al but INTERN­AL. Dictators have killed about three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars.

R.          Republics and Democracies succumbing to Tyrants

At least thirty three Democracies succumbed to tyrants in the 20th Century when they failed to uphold Oaths and constitutions. Taken from Hagen & Irish (2000):

Argentina: Juan Peron; Cambodia: Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge; USSR - Ukraine: Stalin; USSR - Russia: Stalin; China: Mao Tse-Tung & China’s “Great Leap For­ward”; Central African Republic: Jena-Bédal Bokassa; Cote D’Ivoire: Felix Houphouet-Boigny; Dominican Republic: Diederich Bernard Trujillo; Germany: Adolf Hitler, GDR; Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah; Haiti: Dr. François Duvalier; In­donesia: Sukarno, Suharto; Iran: Shah Pahlavi, Khomeini; Iraq: Sadam Hussein; Italy: Benito Mussolini; Malawi: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda; Malaysia: Dr. Mahathir Mohammad; North Korea: Kim Il-Song; Panama: General Noriega; Philippines: President Ferdinand Marcos; Romania: Ion Antonescu, Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolea Ceausescu;; Senegal: Leopold Sedar Senghor; Spain: Prima De Rivera, General Francisco Franco; Sudan: Arab-Islamist military; Tanzania: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere; Turkey: Prime Minister Talaat Pasha (Ottomon Em­pire); Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Nyazov; Uganda: Idi Amin; Uruguay: Gregorio Alvarez; Zaire: Mobutu Sese Seko; Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe.

See also: Rome: Julius Caesar, Nero, Domitian.

S.           Chester Arthur, British by birth      

            Chester Arthur was born in Vermont on October 5, 1829, to William & Malv­ina Arthur.[187] William Arthur, was born in Ireland in 1796 and eloped to Canada with Malvina of Vermont in 1821. William Arthur was naturalized as a US citizen in New York on August 31, 1843[188] Chester Arthur's birth his father was still a Brit­ish citizen, giving Chester primary British citizenship through his father. William was not naturalized until 14 years after Chester's birth. Apparently Chester Arthur explicitly hid his British citizenship when running for Vice President. Chester Ar­thur took the unusual step of burning all his records. He appears to have suffi­ciently dissembled regarding his father’s history that no one discovered that Willi­am had been a British citizen at Chester’s birth, and that Chester was ineligible to become President, not being a “natural born citizen” for having foreign allegiance.

            Wrotnowski details Arthur's restating birth dates and his father's history.[189] Since Justice Gray was appointed by Arthur, Wrotnowski suggests Arthur's ap­pointment may have influenced Gray's opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark vs his opinion in Elk v. Wilkins.[190],[191]

T.           Period for qualifying, Sunday excepted.

          Verifying the qualifications of the President elect before inauguration is of great public importance. January 19th the Martin King Luther Federal holiday, while January 20th is a holiday for federal workers in the District of Columbia and surrounding counties. 5 USC § 6103 (a) & (c).  Excluding weekends, the period between the constitutional “election” of the President elect January 6th to Inaugura­tion on January 20th, typically leaves only seven business days to submit a motion between the formal “election” of the President elect, and the Supreme Court’s last Friday conference to review such a motion (5 days from Jan 8th in 2009.)

            Resolving this issue before the Inauguration of the President Elect on Jan. 20th is of the highest public importance. Should the President Elect be found in­eligible to become President after inauguration, that would cause a major constitu­tional “crisis” of the first order. It would seriously damage the public trust in the Rule of Law, and in the honor and reputation of Congress, the Electoral College and the Judiciary in the eyes of the public. If the President elect’s qualifications are challenged, but the Inauguration proceeded without word from the Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating enormous political barriers that make it difficult to obtain effective redress by the Petitioner.

            However, the Constitution only excludes Sunday as days in which the govern­ment is required to act. U.S. Const.  art. I, § 7 ¶ 2. Preservation of the Constitution as supreme law empowers overrides subsidiary laws, rules and customs. If neces­sary, the Supreme Court could meet on Saturdays, Martin Luther King day, or January 20th to consider motions regarding qualification of the President elect. This provides ten days in which the Supreme Court can act.

U.         Burden of Proof on the Defendant in Quo Warranto

            “In a long line of decisions this court has held that in proceedings by informa­tion in the nature of quo warranto the defendant, if he justifies, must set out his title specifically, and must show on the face of the plea that he has a valid title to the office; that the people are not called upon to show anything; that the entire onus is on the defendant, and that he must not only show by his plea, but prove that he has valid title to his office, and if this proof is not made, the people will be entitled to judgment of ouster. . . .The form of the issue in quo warranto between the state and the respondent is not like in other civil proceedings, but the defendant is called on to show title by his plea, which presents an issue of fact, and the burden of proof is upon him to establish it.” People v. Baldridge, 267 Ill. 190, 108 N.E. 49; ANN. CAS. 1917B Ed. Thompson p 468.

            “The people here are the ultimate source of the right to hold a public office; and now, as heretofore, when the right of a person exercising an office is challenged in a direct proceeding by the attorney general, the defendant must establish his title, or judgment will be rendered against him. . . The possession of the office was not in this action evidence of his right. The burden was upon him to show by affirm­ative evidence that his possession was a legal and rightful one.” People v. Thacher, 55 N.Y. 525, 14 Am. Rep. 312; ANN. CAS. 1917B Ed. Thompson p 468

V.     Standing in Quo Warranto

            “In quo warranto proceedings seeking the enforcement of a public right the people are the real party to the action and the person bringing suit "need not show that he has any real or personal interest in it." State ex rel. Pooser v. Wester, 126 Fla. 49, 53, 170 So. 736, 737 (1936).

W.   Information relating to Obama’s Kenyan Birth

            Rev. Kweli Shuhubia personally recorded Sarah Hussein Obama’s statement that she was present in Mombasa at the birth of her grandson Senator Barack Obama (Jr). Respondent Obama's cousin Prime Minister Raila Odinga has sealed public records that allegedly contain Ann Dunham's birth records in Mombasa Kenya.

            “Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your

grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. . . . "I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Sen­ator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Re­gistrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attor­ney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted fur­ther information" Berg v. Obama, SC No. 08A50 (F.3d. No. 08-cv-04083) affidavit of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia Oct. 27,2008.

X.     Cases against Obama and McCain

            “Lawsuits have been filed in at least 10 states claiming that either President Obama or the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, is not a “natural born citizen.” All of the cases that have proceeded to judgment have been found to be improper and have been quickly dismissed. See, e.g.,

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 ( Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding Obama for lack of statutory standing and subject matter jurisdiction);

Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for lack of jurisdiction);

Roy v. Federal Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for failure to state a claim);

Marquis v. Reed, Superior Court Case No. 08-2-34955 SEA ( Wash. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama);

Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds);

In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in PA., 944 A.2d 75 ( Pa. 2008);                                                                                      

Lightfoot v. Bowen, Supreme Court Case No. S168690 ( Cal. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition and Stay regarding Obama);

Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d, 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy);

Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at *1 (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory);     

Martin v. Lingle, Supreme Court Case No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding Obama on several grounds);

Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama on standing grounds);

Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division (N.J. 2008).”[192]