Obama Records

Leo Donofrio Has Punted Quo Warranto

On 11.30.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

Leo Punts

Leo Donofrio is ‘PUNTING” the ‘BALL’ and says quote, “The blog is taking too much of my time and energy.” If this is true Leo has wasted my time as others. I have followed Leo on his blog and was inspired by him to believe obama could be exposed as a FRAUD through Quo Qarranto. Leo explained the process and documented how it could be done. Now Leo has removed all his documented information and left us all ‘out to dry’. One day Leo exclaims he will not give up and the next he says he does not have enough time all of a sudden. I have documented some of Leo’s outstanding work about Quo Warranto. I thought it was worthy of documenting and trying to disseminate. I can’t believe Leo is giving up. He did this once before and later starting informing us again. Leo don’t give up and don’t let us down!
……………………………………………………………………………….

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.

The information Leo posted on Oct 8, 2009 explains how Americans can expose obama as a FRAUD. This post is important to all who want to know how to expose obama as an imposter. Leo is correct I believe. This will work. I can’t understand why Leo did not bring this action in the DC Court or represent someone who was directly injured by obama such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin.

Leo has deleted this information from his blog but it is still cached by google.
Quo Warranto For Interested Persons
……………………………………………………………………………….

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.

But they’ve never even tried.

Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.

Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.

Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.

If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.

I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.

Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?

Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.

Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
……………………………………………………………………………..

Leo I read this over a few times. I agree. Why have you deserted America and punted? Story Reports
……………………………………………………………………………..

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Leo has deleted this information but I have preserved it for your information and mine.

Leo is the citizen lawyer that has inspired me and others to believe the system can still work if applied correctly. Leo has prsented enough information for any US citizen or other interested person to explore the option of using Quo Warranto to expose the FRAUD obama. I wish I knew if any other lawyer or interested party has attempted to use Quo Warranto to expose the IMPOSTER obama. I believe this is possible. Of course I don’t know how the DC Court would respond.

I appeal again to Leo Donofrio to file a Quo Warranto in Dc Court before giving up on America and all those who believe in the possiblity of removing obama from office because of Quo Warranto.Story Reports

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

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.

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Actions Against Officers Of The United States QUO WARRANTO Chaper 35 Sub Chapter I

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER II
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Actions Against Officers Or Corporations Of The District Of Columbia

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS

Procedures And Judgments

………………………………………………………………………………

Constitution.org Quo Warranto

§ 4.19 STANDING — PRIVATE PERSONS SUING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES PERMITTING WITH LEAVE OF COURT

It is now fairly common for states by statute or court rule to allow private individuals, under certain circumstances at least, to bring actions in quo warranto (or its modern equivalent) with leave granted by court.’

Frequently by statute or rule the individual seeking leave must be an “interested person.”

Other courts have often said that “a person who has no greater interest than the public generally cannot maintain an action….”4 Generally claimants to the public office involved have been accepted as “interested persons,”5 and there has been expressed at times the unfortunate notion that only such claimants are “specially interested.”6

Statutes authorizing private persons to bring quo warranto in their own names customarily require them to post security for costs.17

§ 4.21 STANDING – PRIVATE PERSONS BRINGING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING SAME AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REFUSED TO BRING ACTION

Statutes and rules of court in a number of jurisdictions permit private individuals to bring quo warranto, either in their own name or in the name of the state, after they have requested the attorney general to commence such action and he has refused.l

Notwithstanding the unqualified language of the statutes, e.g. “a private person,” “any citizen,” “any elector”, courts operating under these statutes have been inclined to rule that persons generally cannot bring quo warranto under these statutes, but that the action can be brought only by individuals with special interests.2

The appellate courts add: “The private interest alleged must be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the action sought to be challenged in the quo warranto proceeding. The damage to that private interest must be then occurring or certain to occur; the petitioner cannot rely on an expected damage to his private interest.” Significantly, the court adds that “the private interest of one citizen may be an interest shared by other members of the community for purposes of establishing quo warranto standing.”6

§ 4.26 THE INITIAL PLEADING OF THE APPLICANT – THE COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INFORMATION

Generally, as in other civil actions, the initial pleading of an applicant for quo warranto or its statutory equivalent is denominated a complaint.1 Occasionally it is referred to as a petition,2 or an information.3

When the attorney general brings the action in quo warranto in vindication of a public right, it has customarily only been necessary that he allege in general terms that the defendant is unlawfully usurping a public office or franchise, there being no need to set forth the particular facts.4 Even when a private individual is bringing this kind of action to vindicate public rights, it has not ordinarily been necessary for him to do more than allege the defendant was usurping the public office or franchise without lawful authority.5 The rule permitting such broad pleading has often been criticized, and modern statutes have been drawn so as to require greater specificity.6

When an individual is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto, his pleading must positively, with certainty and specificity set forth the facts on which he relies.7 They must be set forth clearly and without ambiguity,8 sufficient to indicate the unlawful nature of the defendant’s actions.9 Legal conclusions are not sufficient.10 In some states the complaint must allege that the individual seeking relief has a private interest in the matter and that the action sought to be challenged by quo warranto has harmed that interest.11 When an individual making application for quo warranto is able, as under many statutes, to assert his own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendant, the plaintiff must set forth facts indicating his own right to the office.12

(Record Master)
Who can allege their interests were harmed? Who has a private interest? Who can assert their own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendent? Who can set forth the facts and is considered a “real party” in interest in bringing action for quo warranto?

SARAH PALIN
She is an individual that is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto.

Sara Palin could file a complaint/petition via the federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

“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.”

Leo D.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C. Quo Warranto Claims (Judge Carter Ruling)

Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.

Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Judge Cater Ruling Case No SACV 09-0082 DOC-AN 10/29/2009

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin could today bring obama to his knees if she would petition the DC District Court by using the Quo Warranto Federal Law In Washington DC.

Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.

Sarah, Geral why have you not done this? I have not heard you speak of any challenge to Obama.

America is waiting for you to take action. America needs you to seek to remove obama because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. You have standing with the DC District Court through Quo Warranto.

Please expose obama before it is too late!!

Quo Warranto Information At Constitution.org

………………………………………………………………………………
Leo ‘our quaterback’ was moving the ‘ball’ down the field of Quo Warranto with this information below. It is the template or outline for a “game changer”. Our ‘quarter back’ has now punted for ‘less points’. I want to win Leo. I didn’t want to settle for ‘less points’. Leo has left the ‘game’ because he is injured. I think Leo is frustrated with other lawyers who have used the system incorrectly. I hope Leo is able to return to the “game” soon and take the “ball”, “Quo Warranto” to the Dc Court and win the “game”!

………………………………………………………………………………
Leo Donofrio

“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

“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.

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.

Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.

I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.

The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.

Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.

THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.

Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…

“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”

I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.

CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

……………………………………………………………………………..
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

I have recorded additional information Leo Donofrio has written about Quo Warranto. This information is available at the link below and I will post it again here. Leo explains Juge Carter’s ruling and documents how the door was left open to Quo Warranto. Leo you need to walk through the door you were talking about for America.

……………………………………………………………………………..

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.

Leo Donofrio

Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

“The DC District Court”, has the power, “to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.

The Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

(Leo will you test it? Can you follow through with the ‘conflict’? Don’t let America down)
………………………………………………………………………………
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
………………………………………………………………………………

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)

………………………………………………………………………………

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

If you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.

The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
……………………………………………………………………………..
Leo Explains Quo Warranto Radio Interview

………………………………………………………………………………

quo warranto

“By what warrant do you hold office”?

The DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.

How Congress Is Sanitizing The Natural Born Issue

Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue. Leo D.

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
What a citizen can do to EXPOSE THE FRAUD obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………

Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.

Remember:

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!) Story Reports

*****************************************************************************************
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
*****************************************************************************************

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.

*****Everybody: 16-3502*****

Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.

This is what I can do and any US citizen that is not an “interested person” such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin for example. These two people have injured by obama and can go directly to the DC Court.

Leo has provided the template. Leo has deleted the template from his blog. I have preserved it. Leo stated it was for our use. I urge Americans to use this procedure that Leo has said will work. I also believe it will if applied as Leo has explained. I am disappointed that leo has deleted this excellent information on his blog for us to use. Leo must have known someone would preseve it

Comments On

‘Quo Warranto for ‘Interested Persons” – Leo Donofrio; Plus Related Items: Are You ‘Interested?’ Investigating Obama

Leo Donofrio says he is to busy

Tagged with: leo donofrio quo warranto obama fraud imposter dc court natural born citizen

Revealing The Truth About Barrack Hussein Obama

On 11.11.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under
certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to
gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and
defeat them. (Obama uses both forms) (On this Veterans day I have found it necessary
to promote the truth to all Americans especially those who serve a deceiver in chief.)

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746) – “Lying is permissible when there
is a legitimate desired end. And the legitimate desired end may be a
personal one.”

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.
The two forms are:

Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true. (Obama is known for this)

Kitman – Lying by omission. (Obama is also known for this)

This 12 part series reveals who Barrack Hussein Obama is. If you want to know what is behind the mask you will after taking the time to view these 10 min series segments.
There will be no doubt as to who Barrack Hussein Obama is and his purpose for America.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Revealing The Truth About Obama

(Revealing the truth about Barrack Hussein Obama By Usama Dakdok)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie
are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a
Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims
as well). It is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally
encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

There is an exception when assuming obama is telling you the truth. He is not. He will advance his cause.

Whats better a no record president or an idiot?

On 11.06.09, In Off The Record, By Record Master

Oh ,I did not mention the third possibility a “no record idiot”. Each possibility makes for a disaster. Obama comes off like an idiot every time he gets in front of a microphone. America has elected a “no record idiot” who is being manipulated like a puppet. The puppet/dummy of course cannot move or talk without the “handlers” making him move.

So I have come to the conclusion it is not only obama that is an idiot but various “handlers” also. America is being tricked and fooled daily by the “handlers” in the whitehouse.

Yesterday Nov 5, 09 obama had a news conference about the murders in Texas at Fort Hood. He spent the first 3 or 4 minutes acting like a dummy should. The handlers got their strings tangled and obama delayed talking about the tragic killings at Fort Hood. Obama’s mouth was manipulated an he uttered these words: “I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you.”

Joe Medicine Crow got Presidential Medal of Freedom, not the Congressional Medal of Honor. Only an IDIOT would not know the difference. So who are the idiots? Obama or his handlers. Well there all IDIOTS because they should have known obama gave Joe Medicine Crow – “High Bird” the medal of freedom on Aug 15, 2009 less than one month ago. It could be obama and his handlers don’t know the difference between the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Again this means there all IDIOTS! Obama’s quote is an “obama record” that can’t be hidden from view. It is additional proof obama is a manipulated imposter.

It is funny and strange that obama’s past is a no record yet he and his handlers act like buffoons and create an ‘obama record” that makes obama sound like an IDIOT on a daily basis.

A shout-out is a greeting or acknowledgment of a person, group, or organization of significance.

I want to give a shout out to obama acknowledging his profound insight into what he is talking about on a daily basis. Obama’s penetration beyond what is superficial or obvious and the unqualified absolute fact obama is an IDIOT and so are his handlers makes a shout out necessary.

Um Um Um, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Um Um Um a “no record idiot” of the state run media.

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae (obama birth in Kenya)

On 11.06.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

Affidavit: Written statement made voluntarily, confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, and signed before an officer empowered to administer such oaths. It usually names the place of execution and certifies that the person making it states certain facts and appeared before the officer on a certain date and “subscribed and swore” to the statement.

“Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout both the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda here in the United States, US Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii.”

“It is a known fact that membership in the United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama was a member, does not require muslims to renounce their Islamic faith in order to join the UCC church.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
This obama record indicates obama is a muslim and was born in Kenya not Hawaii. I would like to know where the “common knowledge” throughout Kenya about obama originated.
(record Master)

If you believe this affidavit it has more clout than the online “certification of live birth” obama has put forth as evidence he was born in Hawaii. Remember obama has not sworn to anything. Bishop Ron Mcrae has sworn to this affidavit. This affidavit is a real record filed in court. Obama has filed a sworn statement on a form in Arizona that he is a naturnal born citizen but this is a fraudulent affidavit that was filed before the election.

Obama committed fraud and not immune from prosecution in Arizona

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This affidavit is part of the Berg Case:

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, I, Bishop Ron McRae am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows:

I am the Continental Bishop who oversees the Anabaptists Churches in North America. I am also the Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery, where we have numerous churches throughout Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and mission works to several other African nations. The African Presbytery is comprised of the national bishops of the various countries we minister in and support, along with our statewide bishops from New York and Pennsylvania.

We actively visit and minister throughout these African countries, and do so extensively throughout all of Kenya these last three (3) years. in overseeing the establishment of our churches and presbytery to Kenya over the last two (2) years we have had personal dealings, continually, with many citizens of Kenya from every tribe and economic standing throughout the wonderful nation of Kenya, with whom the national interests in United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a very popular topic of discussion. The tribal cultures of the Kenyanese people have involved much turmoil during the national elections at the end of December 2007 and the beginning of 2008.

The much published violence that erupted over the presidential elections caught the world’s attention. Myself and several American minister with our church were present during this time in Kenya, and the facts concerning this strife and the ensuing violence were well known, and of common knowledge throughout all of Kenya.

The opposition party that was responsible for all of the violence was from the minority Luo tribe, which is a Muslim tribe that supported Mr. Raila Odinga for president. Raila Odinga is a Marxist socialist who graduated from the East Germany Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship from the East German government. He named his first born son after Fidel Castro. Raila Odinga spent six years in prison for his admitted involvement in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 to over take and assissinate Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya’s President. Mr. Odinga has publicly admitted to being the leader of that coup in his 2006.

Mr. Odinga is the cousin of United States Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is from the same Muslim tribe, the Luo Tribe, as Mr. Odinga. Senator Obama visited Kenya in August of 2006 and campaigned extensively for his cousin, Mr. Odinga, which gave Odinga a tremendous boost. During Senator Obama’s campaign stops on behalf of his cousin Odinga, the Senator made numerous claims against the democratic government of Kenya and Kenya’s Presidcent Mwai Kibaki, claiming they were corrupt, stating often, that Kenya was “ready for change”, just as he has campaigned here in the United States during the Presidential election. It has been common knowledge throughout Kenya that Senator Obama sent his foreign policy advisor, Mr. Mark Lippert, to Kenya at least three times to advise Mr.Odinga on his campaign strategies. See Mark Hyman’s Washington Times article published October, 12, 2008, attached as Exhibit “I”. Moreover, everyone in Kenya is well aware that Senator Obama donated over one million American dollars ($1,000,000) to his cousin’s, Mr. Odinga’s campaign, which is documented in the Kenyan Political Party, for Mr. Odinga. Orange Democratic Movement (hereinafter “ODM”) along with extensive funds from other Muslim supporters including but not limited to the Muslim son of Muammar Gadhafi, the dictator of Libyan’s Muslim government. These issues are common knowledge throughout Kenya, and the information is publicly document across the internet.

It is detailed in Odinga’s financial reports and strategies ODM Internal Memo documents, attached as Exhibit “2″, which are public records, that a significant portion of Senator Obama’s financial contributions (made through an organization identified as Friends of Senator Barack Obama) were used to help finance both the signed Muslim Memorandum of Understanding as well as the planned violence, murders and bloodshed that occurred in December of 2007. Within the ODM Internal Memo attached as Exhibit “2″, the funds donated by Mr. Obama through “Friends of Senator Barack Obama” were to be used for “Violence as a last result…to discourage voter participation in hostile areas..use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas…support Kapondi’s forces in Mt. Eglori”, and to do as during “Mid-December”. Unfortunately, the exact violence described in these reports was carried out and occurred at the beginning of the second week of December 2007.

Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout both the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda here in the United States, US Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii as falsely purported by the Obama campaign for presidency of the United States. Mr. Obama’s cousin ran his failed campaign for the Kenyan presidency in the identical fashion of Senator Obama’s American campaign strategy, and that being to join a nominal Christian Church in order to publicly profess to be a Christian, while maintaining their actual Muslim beliefs, in order to sway public opinion away from the actual fact of his strong Muslim beliefs, family and goals. It is a known fact that membership in the United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama was a member, does not require muslims to renounce their Islamic faith in order to join the UCC church. Throughout Kenya it is and was well publicized in the media that a Memorandum of Understanding agrement, attached as Exhibit “3″, between Raila Odinga and Shiek Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, was signed by Odinga in August 29, 2007 in which Raila Odinga promised if elected to implement drastic changes including but not limited to the following:

* Recognize “Islam as the only true religion” * “Islamic leaders would have an oversight rule to monitor activities of ALL other religions (emphasis in the original) * Installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction to implement Islamic law * Implement a ban on Christian preaching

Because of the seriousness of all of the above, as a Christian and a citizen of the United States, this preacher could no longer sit idly by knowing these things and continue to minister in both Kenya and the United States. As the presiding bishop over the Continental Presbytery of Africa, I authorized representatives within our church to locate and interview Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, the actual grandmother of US Senator Barack Obama. Ms. Sarah Obama lives in the Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu, where the Anabaptists have a congregation, and where this preacher has preached several times prior to the December elections in 2007, and prior to the planned violence from the Odinga supporters, which erupted.

With Senator Obama being born in Kenya and not in the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen and it prohibits him from being eligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. Since Senator Obama’s birth was reportedly in 1961, birth records may or may not be available, so I felt it very important to obtain the testimony of his grandmother as a first hand witness, since it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especiallyaround the Kisamu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.

Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelist with our ministries traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email attached as Exhibit “4″. Mr. Shuhudu is a very intelligent and educated citizen of Africa, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Africa. Mr. Shuhudia acts as our official translator when we are in Africa, and is fluent in both Swahili and English. Mr. Shahudu met and interviewed Ms. Sarah Obama at length on October 16th during which interview, he called me on my mobile number, see my phone record attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr Shuhudia called me first on october 16th at 10:33 a.m. and advised that hwe was with Sarah Hussein Obama and that she wanted to speak with me, but the connection was lost. He called me right back at 10:35 a.m. and he informed me that there were several hundred people present, celebrating Obama’s success. I questioned him about the format of the phone call and conversation with Ms. Obama, and then informed him that I would call him right back, so it would not cost him international charges for the call. I called him back at 10:40 a.m. and public music and voices could be heard that were gathered around Kweli Shuhudia. I then spoke with him and requested that htey utilize the speaker phone so everyone could hear.

The speaker phone with its open microphone was utilized with Mr. Shuhdia, Mr. Vatalis Alec Ogombe the Kogelo Community chairman assisting in the translation work and Ms. Sarh Hussein, along with several hundred people including policemen present and listenin in the open conversation between the four of us for approximately 15 minutes. Mr. VO is also the step grandson of Ms. Obama and the cousin of Barack Obama. A third unknown party can be heard periodically interjecting both Swahili and English words in the public discussion and conversation between the four of us. At times, the room noise from other peoples’ voices makes some of the swahili difficult to hear, and towards the end of the conversation several men’s voices are heard that are not identified. As I talked to and question Ms. Obama publicly over the open microphone of Mr. S’s speaker phone, they would translate what I said to her in Swahili publicly, and then they would translate her Swahili responses to me publicly in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. In the ensuing public conversation, I 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! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.” Though, some few younger relatives, including Mr. Ogombe, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’ clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No, He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A transcript of this taped public interview is attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr. Shuhudia took photographs during the open conversations and interview with Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, which photos will be forthcoming.

Becase of the seriousness of the political situation and the impact of such on a United States Presidential election, and because of the factual reality of tremendous violence in kenya towards Christians, especially in the immediate area of Kisumu, where both Sarah Hussein Obama and Rev. Kweli Shuhudia live, it is requested that all reasonable and legal steps be taken to secure Rev. Kweli Shuhudia’s identity to the Federal Court alone, in order to protect his life and safety for being willing to provide this very important assistance in gathering this testimony and evidence to be used in any Federal litigation.

The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whom I am and whom I serve.

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.

by the grace of God alone,

Ron McRae Residing Bishop Continental Presbytery of Africa Anabaptists Churches of N. America

Tagged with: fraud obama affidavit bishop ron mcrae obama

“Pop”a poem Barack Obama wrote and published as an undergraduate

On 11.05.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

Sohale "Hal" Siddiqi, a drug addicted illegal alien from Pakistan and Obama.

(Record Master)
Obama has so few records I thought this “stink” of a “poem” should be published.

“Pop,” written when Obama was 19. This crude ‘poem” could be about obama himself sitting in his seat, sprinkled with ashes, smoking pot, taking another shot of seagrams, stain on his shorts, makes me smell his smell, coming from obama and his buddy Siddiqi, a drug addicted illegal alien from Pakistan. Obama a flim and flam “no record” of the world, since things have been easy for him, from under his seat pulls out the mirror he’s been saving, laughing, looking at himself, a narcissistic personality laughing loud at Americans who believe in freedom. Obama fails to pass the smell test. With heavy lobes obama’s still telling his jokes and the state run media is running laugh tracks with every fake quote and every broad and broken comment.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Pop

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies . . .
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ’cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

– Barack Obama

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The most telling line in the poem is one of the shortest. The line is “Fail to pass.”

Obama is a failure. A failure immersed in himself. A “man child” as rush calls him.

Obama fails and his failures are passed over by the “state run media”. Obama fails to answer question concerning his college records, birth records, or any record.

Obama fails to pass the smell test.

The smell test is documentation proving and authenticating obama’s past record of performance based on academic achievements in any school or college he says he attended.

Obama has not presented anything confirming academic achievements anytime except for a “stink” of a “poem” that “fails to pass” the test of real achievement.

This “poem” is one of a couple of “performance” records of obama that has surfaced.

This “poem” is record of obama’s performance. It is slim evidence of achievement. In fact it proves obama is best described as an underachiever. A lame excuse for confidence in obama. This is the evidence we have to be able to say obama is a scholar, a learned person.

Obama’s “scholarship” is in the form of an affirmative action “no record” promoted as an intellectual. Obama has been promoted as a “super hero” to save America.

Obama is as fake as any “super hero” in any comic book. He is a figment of the imagination of public relations firms who were paid over $260,000,000. to promote the comic book hero “obama”.

Obama the “hero” is a real zero. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Obama has no records to share with the public authenticating his person except pr spin.

Obama is a figment of no imagination. He really is an empty suit.

Obama Record Found In Concrete

On 11.04.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

ObamaKing

(TerryK Comments etc)

Barack Obama is possibly the son of cousins, Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis — and Hawaiian royalty — perhaps heir to the Hawaiian throne.

Obama called himself “king Obama” while a student in the late 1970s. Barack Obama carved his name in the pavement outside the cafeteria of Punahou School.

Imagine the Hawaiian Homestead lands and the Hawaiian Crown Lands are like an insular government. It’s an insular foreign government found on U.S. soil in a way. But the trust and treaty say that land is under the local foreign government’s jurisdiction. Much like a Native American reservation.

MORE reason to suspect FMD has the bloodline, too. Possibly Obama is VERY closely related or he wouldn’t have had the help and motivation to do what he’s done! Possibly both his mother and father are part of the bloodline.

“My mom not being an arranged birth like my grandpa and grandma–makes me not from that origin of Papa and Wakea.”

Arranged birth, possibly, this is what happened with BHO!

The point is that the Crown Lands and Homestead lands are SOVEREIGN without the rest of the state being sovereign.

There’s a hawaiian tradition of Hanai, an adoption of royal children at birth to other chiefs and family. Most often to GRANDPARENTS for raising. All of the last queen’s ten siblings were adopted out in a hanai.

It’s the Homestead Lands and Crown Lands that are under their own government that’s important to understand.

I think Obama was born, perhaps, on some of that land.

Emma Dunham could be related to the Dunhams. I think SAD is the mother and in the tradition of hanai, his grandparents mostly raised BHO. However, I think F M DAVIS is the biological father with the bloodline, too. Possibly BHO Sr. was chosen as a ’second father’ in the Tradition of Queen Ruth, because of his indigenous ties to the luo tribe and experience with colonialization. Possibly BHO Sr. was adopted into the tribe in the tradition of hanai too while he was a student in Hawaii.

About Emma Bernice Bishop Dunham, born April 7, 1861, at Drytown, California-died Jan. 19,1924 at oakland, california (from Mormon website). Only had one sibling that lived to adulthood-George Lewis Dunham. Please note Gabriella Clark, on Obama family tree Chicago Sun-Times, born 1877. Question: could she be hanai? Notice Harry Ellington Armour’s mother’s name? Anne? Just conjecture–completely tinfoil–if Gabriella is Emma Bernice’s hanai, then Stanley Armour Dunham has a name that traces the connection. In this scenerio the unknown Anne would trace back to Elizabeth Davis, who I am guessing would trace back to Caroline Elizabeth Gilliland who could be related to Bernice Paki. Brother’s marrying sisters? it happened a lot back then.

It especially happened with the Hawaiian Royals.

Remember the act where they were trying to give those of foreign birth Hawaiian birth certificates?? Obama could theoretically have been born anywhere in the world, but had familial lines in Hawaii and would be considered native Hawaiian, and thus a Natural born American citizen as defined by Hawaiians.

A Hawaiian can collect additional names with age. The name given at birth might reflect prophesy or a hope that the child will grow to develop certain qualities. As they grow and change, Hawaiians are sometimes given new names in addition to their first name as their circumstances change throughout life.

As with King Kamehameha, his first name was Pai’ea, which meant crab, because he would cling to his caregiver like a crab. Once he became more outgoing, he was called Kamehameha because of his brassy qualities. He carried both names throughout his life, and collected many more along the way. ”

“The Hawaiian language is based on about 200 words, which makes naming a child tricky. A parent has to be careful when choosing the name to avoid a “kaona” (pronounced “cow-na”), or hidden meaning”

Remember how it was pointed out that Lolo’s name meant ‘Crazy’ or ‘crazy head’ or something like that?

Islamic Tactics of Taqqiya teaches Muslims to practise Deception , Fraud & Double Standards to spread Islam…

Frank Marshall Davis and the Dunhams were from Kansas.

Remember obama has left a record carved in concrete. It says, “king obama”.

(What does all this mean? I guess it could possibly mean obama was born in Hawaii but not in the state of Hawaii. He could have been born on “tribal land” and is possibly some kind of descendant of the royal hawaiian family or something. If so it means he again is not a US citizen because he was not born in this country. This is speculation but hey we have a “record in concrete”. A concrete record written by obama himself declaring his royal roots. If this is true it wouldn’t suprise me because obama is a con man after all.

Obama Has No kindergarden records from Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967

On 11.04.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

Obama Has No kindergarden records from Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967.

Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be just
below obama's

The picture is from Winifred (Wakai) Otaguro, who was in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. Otaguro’s mother, Betty Wakai, had written the names of most of the kids in the class on the back of the picture. Her writing identifies the first little boy in the third row as “Barry Obama.” Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama, however, the Department of Education has been unable to find his records.

Obama began his education in Hawaii’s public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.

The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. Their their birth announcement is missing. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. What happened to the space their birth announcement was in.

We are expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama’s name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Odd?

Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here:

Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here just below obama's but for some strange reason are not?

Obama’s Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of “coincidences.”

This is an very important because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:

1. Obama’s REAL Long Form Birth Certificate.

2. An application with the following:

• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)

The Department of Education does not “lose” the records of one “particular student”.

In kindergarden there would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide what could possibly “excuse” the disapperance of public school Kindergarten entry records. There would be only:

• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)

Which would be very revealing.

Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. Why is there no documentation?

Obama joked during the primary campaign that his opponent (Hillary) was even digging into his Kindergarten records. He knows what they would contain and why they must be kept unavailable.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(Record Master)

The elephant in the room in a BIG NO RECORD. Obama’s life is a NO RECORD.
If it was just his kindergarden records missing it would be different but its ALL his education records and any other documentation that could verify who he is.

This in itself is beyond ODD. The fact the national news media, dnc and all of congress have ignored this fact is beyond ODD also.

Obama has produced nothing to prove who he is except a “certification of live birth” from Hawaii that can’t be confirmed by the public. The “colb” produced by obama has not been certified by an Hawwain registrar. It contains no signatures, no hospital, no doctor and no parents signatures. It is worthless as evidence obama is who he says he is. It is worthless in verifying where obama was born. Just because an Hawaiian offical states she has seen his original colb means nothing also. It is only a statement that CAN’T BE CONFIRMED by anyone! Who is obama? What is obama?

THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

On 11.01.09, In Where Are Obama's Records, By Record Master

klunker

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.

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Actions Against Officers Of The United States QUO WARRANTO Chaper 35 Sub Chapter I

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER II
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Actions Against Officers Or Corporations Of The District Of Columbia

Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS

Procedures And Judgments

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Constitution.org Quo Warranto