9 Responses to “to Sen Inhofe’s ofice from a citizen of OK”

1. Jonathan
   May 8th, 2009 @ 5:00 am

   I have ask my Representative almost daily Congress Woman Foxx, she will no answer me, she once referred me to factcheck.org, I refuted this as garbage, no reply.
   I have challenged Congresswoman Foxx to honor her oath of office, no reply, I am just beside myself why these wimps will not stand up for out Constitution, I assume they are all in he pockets of the Bankers.
   Angry in North Carolina

2. Pat
   May 8th, 2009 @ 7:06 am

   I was just thinking back to before BO was elected, he was always on his Blackberry. Who was BO getting his orders from? Could it have been from the Bilderberg crime consortium?

3. ERIC MILLER
   May 8th, 2009 @ 9:35 am

   IN BRIEF:
   REPUBLICANS HAVE REMEDY FOR OBAMA ALREADY.
   WHAT I AM ABOUT TO POST IS NOT A JOKE, OR OTHERWISE MY FORM OF INSANITY. INCLUDING NO DRUG USE.
   RONALD WILSON REAGAN WAS NEVER DEAD, HIS DEATH WAS FAKED. HE IS CURED OF ALZH.
   OBAMA THE USURPER WILL SLIP INTO HISTORY WITHOUT A FIGHT.
   RONALD WILSON REAGAN WILL REPLACE OBAMA THE USURPER AS PRO-TEM PRESIDENT, THEN OBTAIN THE OFFICE, WITH ALL POWERS.
   THE WORK YOU ARE DOING WILL BRING THIS ABOUT. REPUBLICANS DO NOT NEED TO GET INTO THE THE MIX.
   YOUR DOING GREAT.
   I THANK YOU
   ERIC MILLER

4. Ron
   May 8th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

   Ron Paul is my Congressman and the response I got from him (or his staff) on the “Obama” birth issue was either extremely dishonest or the answer of a moron.

5. William
   May 8th, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

   First and foremost, please do not be displeased with him, he has “Zero” Authority in the matter… Consider this…

   Here is what L.D. Researched, and I happen to agree following up on his legal search.

   “Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.
   A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

   The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.

   The applicable statute vests both officials with the same mutually exclusive authority to do so. The statute requires either/or, not both. Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.

   The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. I suggest everyone read the entire case.

   According to SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office:
   The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code …provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings…
   …the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 317.

   Years later, any doubts as to the accuracy of this interpretation were completely nullified when current federal statute16-3501 revised the predecessor code to include officers of “the United States” and not just the District of Columbia.

   Neither the statute nor any existing federal case provides an exception to the office of President or any public office of the United States.
   CONCLUSION: An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

   B. Constitutionality of using the federal quo warranto statute to remove a sitting President.

   There are two sections of the Constitution which allow for the removal of the President. Article 2, Section 4 allows for impeachment. This is the remedy for removal of the President should he partake in high crimes or treason. A quo warranto action as to POTUS eligibility does not appear to be covered by impeachment.

   The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6:

   In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge 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.

   Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President. But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.

   Consider the following scenario: A quo warranto action is instituted by AG Holder or, in the alternative, US Attorney Taylor on their own motion. In that case, there must be a hearing on the merits (this will be explained in detail below). Further assume Obama then produces a perfect long form birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, but then the District Court of DC holds that since Obama was also a British subject at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not legally occupying the office of President. Further assume that the DC District Court’s ruling is upheld by SCOTUS.

   Under this fact pattern, Obama would not have broken any laws and so he couldn’t be impeached, but he would be removed from office pertaining to the removal authority of Congress enumerated in Article 2, Section 6, and so delegated by federal statute Chapter 35, §16-3501.

   CONCLUSION: Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute .

   Recall, Congress didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot. And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch. Now please consider the following two points:
   Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.

   Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution.
   They will argue Obama isn’t legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be “ignored”. Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine.

   Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.
   Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue.

   They punted!!! Fact!

   Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is [officially recognized] as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama as President.

   That will never happen.

   Let that sink in because it’s true, even if we don’t like it.

   Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

   Some who support Obama’s eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment. Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must “imply” or “assume” that is the case.

   But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

   The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal. You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead. It is a lie.

   HYPOTHETICAL:
   Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US.

   The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.
   What happens?

   Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached. He’s not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason. Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation? I don’t believe so. We will return to this shortly.

   We must respect the separation of powers or we will lose the Constitution and the Reblic for which it stands.

   The separation of powers argument will be the proper undoing of every single POTUS eligibility law suit running through the courts at this moment in time. They will all fail. And they should, because for any of them to prevail, the separation of powers would be violated.

   Even in law suits where federal courts have been petitioned to request Congress investigate – by way of mandamus – Obama’s eligibility (as opposed to seeking removal), the courts will dismiss on the basis of separation of powers limitations and/or subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs were found to have passed the difficult standing tests (and that’s not going to happen either).

   While I respect the litigants and the efforts they have made, I take issue with some of the tactics employed and I’m also not that impressed with many of the pleadings. I hope that, by publishing this brief, I will correct some of the previous errors and provide the public at large with the best possible education so that proper pressure can be applied to authorized Government officials.

   IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION?
   It appears there is a Constitutionally viable method available for the eligibility issue to be litigated which does not violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution. I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional.

   Full details and analysis below, but first let’s discuss the following:
   REVIEW OF CURRENT QUO WARRANTO ACTIVITY

   Only one attorney has filed for an actual quo warranto claim at this point in time. Unfortunately, that attempt will fail as it was brought on behalf of private plaintiffs.

   As you will see below, any action in quo warranto must be brought on behalf of the [United States]!!!!

   Another attorney has sent a “pre-litigation” letter to Attorney General Holder. But the statute requires a “verified petition” be forwarded to the Attorney General and/or the US Attorney requesting consent plaintiffs be allowed to institute a quo warranto action in the name of the United States. No such petition has been filed!!

   Reason for currently ignored by them? Go figure, it is VERY SPECIFIC ON FILING… [and I am quite confident, they are highly being advised]….

   In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:

   The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia.

   By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks.

   It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

   The modern federal statute is virtually identical except the US attorney has been included with the Attorney General as the two officials who may “at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility… institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”
   Such an action is so proper that despite which side of this argument you fall on, it should be obvious the nation would be better served by having this issue settled once and for all in open court… but not in the name of private plaintiffs who can be so easily painted as partisan.

   If either official bring an action in quo warranto upon their own motion, such an action is brought on behalf of the United States and no leave of the court is necessary.

   Comparatively, if a private attorney petitions these officials to allow them to bring suit in the name of the US “ex relator” then even if one of the two officials gives their consent, leave of the court must be requested and if denied, that’s it. The matter is done. One could then appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is the last resort, not the first. There’s no need to disrespect the statute and the resources of the court by going straight to SCOTUS. That’s just sensational, not wise.

   Another interesting point to consider is that while the predecessor statute only named the District Attorney for the District of Columbia – the modern statute which controls quo warranto as to national officers mentions both the Attorney General and the “United States attorney”. As written, it’s possible any US attorney might be eligible to institute such a quo warranto action.

   Notice that in the statute – “attorney” isn’t capitalized in either 16-3502 or 16-3503 when the “United States attorney” is mentioned. Of course, US Attorney Taylor is certainly authorized, but this needs further research.

   Assuming AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor were to institute an action in quo warranto, the District Court might attempt to avoid a hearing on the merits (which every court of the nation seems hell bent upon avoiding) by claiming that the federal quo warranto statute – if applied to the President – would violate the Constitutional separation of powers and that they are of the opinion that the Constitution only allows removal of the President for impeachment.

   If that argument can be overcome then, due to the obvious public policy benefits inherent in establishing that the President has a clear title to the office of President, there should be no obstacle preventing at least one of the two officials charged with the authority to act in the name of the United States to bring this issue to the court for the benefit of the nation.
   The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.

   1. SCOTUS IS THE WRONG VENUE TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
   The District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III states: § 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.

   In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Emphasis added.)

   The quo warranto statute allows a jury trial on “issues of fact”. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is an issue of fact. Whoever institutes a proceeding pursuant to the statute may request a jury trial and one must be granted. The judge could not refuses.

   But if the case is brought to SCOTUS before it’s brought to the District Court of the District of Columbia, and if SCOTUS were to accept the case, you’re never going to have a jury trial.

   Congress has absolutely no power to “interpret” clauses of the Constitution. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch could make such a determination. Congress properly assigned the issue to the District Court.

   While Congress has the power to remove the President under the Constitution, they don’t have the power to interpret the Constitution. The judicial branch must do that.
   As to issues of fact, ie:
   – how long a person is a citizen of the US
   – how old a person is
   – where a person is born
   …these qualifications for office are matters of fact which Congress properly recognized were best left to a trier of fact and therefore a trial by jury is statutorily allowed.
   The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.

   Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.
   Congress didn’t delegate the authority to remove the President…they exercised that authority.

   Under the statute, the DC District Court must follow the law enacted by Congress. Congress has deemed that if an action is instituted properly, the court then conducts a trial as to all relevant facts. After the facts are determined, the court is empowered under the Constitution, to interpret the law in light of the facts. JURY TRIAL. Think about that.
   SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

   2. STANDING UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE TO INSTITUTE A FEDERAL QUO WARRANTO ACTION
   a. STANDING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

   The DC code allows three different levels of standing to “institute” a quo warranto action. As to private plaintiffs, SCOTUS noted – in Newman at 538 – that Congress “has placed obstacles” in the way. But as to the “Attorney General” or the “United States attorney”, who act in the name of the United States, the statute makes it very simple for an action to be instituted. It says:
   “The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

   SCOTUS in Newman at 546 has interpreted the statute to give wide discretion to these officials:
   “By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.” “IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”

   – There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.
   – There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.
   – There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.
   – There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.

   All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.
   The short answer is that the action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

   Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.

   Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.

   In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which
   cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.

   The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.

   They opened the door to a floodgate of litigation by an incredibly large field of possible plaintiffs who might challenge every single official action of the Obama administration on the basis that he isn’t eligible.

   – Furthermore, there is a tenet of Government that requires there be a certainty to the official actions taken in the name of the United States. No certainty is possible when millions of US citizens, including active military, are concerned that Obama’s credentials were not verified in the same way all citizens must verify their identity for the most simple things in life like getting a drivers license or passport. It smacks of imperial coronation when a Government of, by and for the people are not entitled to know that the commander in chief must submit to the same levels of identity proof as the citizens.”

   Let’s consider this, drop off all 300,000 plus currently filed petitions to both of them in their office, and not rely upon a few hundred phone calls. Not only would that be the correct manner of filing (a one shot deal), it would place them with the aforementioned method of filing.

   I hope this helps with anyone wishing to contact their Senators with the understanding that somehow, they have the legal power to “do something” to remove a sitting President….. Sad fact, they don’t.

6. William
   May 8th, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

   P.S…..

   Pay Very Strict attention to the First Paragraph, whereby it clearly States:

   A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the “name of” the [United States] “against” v. [a person]……

   I cannot find in my research whereby any attorney representing a set of [private clients] v. a person, has ever been filed with acceptance, nor has ever been awarded a QW.

   In other words, no such QW that states John Doe and Jane Doe v. Obama, has ever passed. But John Doe and Jane Doe having signed a petition as U.S. Citizens challenging a possible usurper does pass, historically speaking, whereby such representation would now state: The United States v. Obama [on behalf of signed petition] v. Obama; does pass the test and fit….

   However, using petitions, and therefore representing the [U.S.] and such said petitioners behalf, have been granted such QW.

   Just an analytical thought,

7. Mary Brown
   May 8th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

   I am going to write my senators and congressman using this site as an example of the ludicrous and seditious activities found here. You are not the only people writing. I think the comment about President Reagan is particularly telling. It shows how ridiculous you are.

8. bill
   May 9th, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

   Well, Apparently to me anyway,The folks that occupy the hallowed halls of Congress just can’t bring themselves to admit they are supposed to be working for the American people.You see ,they have had free run of doing exactly what they please for many years and they would prefer to keep it that way.Since the installment of “The One” and
   whomever is giving him marching orders ,it has come to the attention of the American public that our government is broken and needs to be fixed.The citizens of this country are on the march and I have every confidence we the people will be victorious . This of course will not happen unless we keep pushing.walking and talking.So please do whatever you can to continue the fight.Thanks to ALL of you.

• Search for:
• Tweet

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy

• Evidence on Barack Obama

  Obama File with Exhibits
  Affidavit of Paul Irey
  Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
  Obama file Exhibits 9-13
  Obama file Exhibits 14-21
  Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
  Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and Congress

• RSS Feed: Subscribe for Free RSS Feed

  

• ---

  PETITION TO CONGRESS:
  Ban importation of 200,000 Syrian migrants into the US

  

  ---

• Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day

  

• URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS

• OrlyTaitzEsq.com

  • What if GOP outperforms latest polls? New election forecast unveiled

• TAITZ REPORT

  Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE
• 

• Official Facebook

  
  

• Recent Posts

  • (no title)

• IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!

  Historic DVD Now Available! DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling. --------- To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.

• Advertisement / Sponsors

  
  29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
  Ste 100
  Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
  orly.taitz @gmail. com
  (949) 766-7687
  
  
  --------------------------------------
  
  Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
  --------------------------------------
  
  

  Bumper Sticker
  $9.99 thru PayPal

  --------------------------------------
  
  
  --------------------------------------

  Orly Taitz Photo Collections

  
  

• October 2026

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  			1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31

• Pages

  • #409755 (no title)
  • …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
  • …Grinols Subpoenas
  • ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
  • .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
  • 1. Judd v Obama
  • 2. Farrar v Obama
  • 3. Taitz v Sebelius
  • 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
  • 5. Taitz v Astrue
  • 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
  • 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
  • Videos
  • Video: Orly before NH Election Committee