barnett memo mar15_12

8/2/2019 Barnett Memo Mar15_12

1/22

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pamela Barnett, pro se , Petitionerof the Ad Hoc California registered voterswi t h service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961Telephone: 530-845-5186

ENDORSED12 MAR 15 PM l+:07LEGAL PROCESS ^4

S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A I L I F O R N I AC O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O

E d w a r d C . Noonan, Pamela Barnett,Sharon Chickering, George Miller,Tony Dolz, Neil T u r n e r , G a r y Wilmott

Petitioners,v.

Debra Bo'wen individually and off ic ia l lyas The California Secretary o f Stateat 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 FloorSacramento, CA, 95814;Barack Hussein Obama I I ; O B A M AF O R A M E R I C A ( C A L I F O R N I A ) atNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; Johnand Jane Does and XYZ Entities.

Respondents.

Case No.: 34-2012-80001048M E M O R A N D U M O F POINTS A N DA U T H O R I T I E S FO R T H E EX PARTEPAMELA BARNEIT 'S PEREMPTORYW RI T V ^ T H ALT E RNAT IVE W RI TFOR A EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARYHEARING ON THE MERITS OFEVIDENCE AN D FOR CONTINUANCEIN SCHEDULING IN RESPONSE TOBARACK HUSSEIN OBAM A I I , OBAM AFOR AMERICA DEMURRER TOPLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A WRITOF M ANDA TE and RESTRAINT OFFUND RAISINGDate: March 26, 2012Time: 9:00 a.m.Dept: 31Judge: Ho n . Michael P. KennyAction Filed: January 6, 2012

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESINTRODUCTION

Th at th is is the MEM ORA NDU M OF POINTS AN D AUTHO RITIES by Ex Parte Pet i t ione rPamela Barnet t , se l f represented w i thout an a t torney, hav ing a f f i rmed an app l i ca t ion onMarch 14, 2012 w i th exh ib i ts annexed and Memorandum of Po in ts and Author i t ies insuppor t o f a Peremptory Wr i t fo r S tay and in ter im d iscovery w i th A l ternat ive Wr i t fo r anExpedi ted ev ident iary hear ing before March 29, 2012 on the mer i ts o f the ev idence and acont inuance in schedul ing in response to the Demurrer and Memorandum of Respondent

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuan ce in sched uling Page 1 of 22


2/22

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

Barack Obama et al. filed February 15, 2012 by Respondents' counsel Fredric D. WoocherEsq. with return date April 20, 2012 before the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, and therebeing sufficient reason with additional evidence provided hereby, that this affirmation is insupport of an alternative writ for a expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits of theevidence proffered to date before the ballot printing deadline of March 29, 2012 thatsufficient also to require as a matter of fair notice and respect fo r the court calendar thata continuance must be granted for Petitioner's response schedule as to the CaliforniaSecretary of State Deborah Bowen's Demurrer with Memorandumfiled February 16, 2012by Deputy Attorney General Anthony R. HakI, Esq. with return date o fA p r i l 20, 2012, andthat the State be granted further opportunity to amend the demurrer or answer to thePetition subsequent to this Peremptory Writ for Stay and interim discovery withAlternative Writ decision on a hearing on the merits herein and further evidence presentedbased upon the March 1, 2012 the release by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Officeof the COLD CASE POSSE of the preliminary report shown in exhibit; and further, that theCourt order a continuance and suspend the schedule for a decision on the Petition forprerogative writ of mandamus with stay and injunction, and that until the Alternative Writis heard and decision rendered with sufficient reason requires an amended Petition filednunc pro tunc.

Requesting the Court to order that Debra Bowen, The California Secretary of State,Barack Hussein Obama I I ; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by its agents, arehereby stayed f rom printing or placing on the primary ballot of the respective party to beheld on June 5, 2012 any of the names of the electors slates fo r the purported candidatesfor the office of POTUS for BARACK OBAMA, until a hearing and appearance ofRespondents or by his / her attorney to show cause why the stay should be lifted.

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities fo r a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 2 of 22


3/22

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

Requ est ing the Cou r t to order that Debra B owe n, The Cal i fo rn ia Secre tary o f S ta te ,Barack Husse in Obam a I I ; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) by i ts age nts , sha l lappea r or by h is / her a t tor ne y show cause a t th is Cour t , to be he ld a t the Co ur tho use ,by March 26, 2012 , at 9:00 o 'c lock in the forenoon or as soon as counsel may be heardwhy an order should not be made af fec t ing the E lectora l Co l lege requ i r ing that eachdec lared candidate be a natura l born c i t i zen.

T A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E SU.S. Constitution

Art ic le 1 , Sec t ion 8 Clause 3 20Art ic le 2, Sec t ion 1 6,2013"^ A m e n d m e n t 1 4 , 1 5 , 2 014"^ A m e n d m e n t 1 3 - 1 6 ,

California ConstitutionArt ic le 2, Sec t ion 5 21Art ic le 20 the Oa th of of f ice 21

California Sta tuesCal i f o rn ia Government Code 12172 .5Cal i fornia Elect ions Code 6041Cal i fornia Elect ions Code 6901Cal i fornia Elect ions Code 133 14 21Cal i fornia Civi l Code 110 4Cal i fornia Civi l Code 110 9

California CasesKeyes v . Bowen case No. C 0 6 2 3 2 1 . - CA Co urt of App eals 5Ro binso n v. Bo we n, (1 89 Cal .App.4^^ at p.6 61 6Heidi Ful ler v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc. , et a l .No . C065237 (Ca l .App . D i s t . 3 03 /01 /2012) c i t i ng :In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal .2d 592;

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in sche duling Page 3 of 22


4/22

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Al len V. Le iande (1912) 164 Cal . 56.Comber v . Ashe (Tenn . 1974) 514 S.W.2d 7 3 0 ;State ex re l . Gra l i ke v . Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 7 0 ;State ex re l . McGrath v . Er ickson (M inn. 193 8) 203 Minn . 390 . ) 21Federal Cases

Min or V. Ha pp er se t t 88 U.S. 162 (18 75 ) 18,U.S. V. W ong Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649 (1 89 8) 19 ,McPherson v. Blacker, 146 LLS^ 1 (1892)Bush V. Gore, 531 LLS, 98 ( 20 00 )The Ven us, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (18 14 ) 19Elk V W i lk ins 112 US 94 (1 88 4) 19Scot t V Sa nfor d , 19 How ard 393 20Slaug hterho use Cases 16 Wal l 36 , 83 US 73 20St ra ude r v . We st V i rg in ia , 100 US 30 3, 100 US 306 20ResDublIca v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (17 84 ) 1 Dal l . I l l 18

Federal Sta tu tes :3 U . S . C . section 15Federal Forms:

U.S. DO S ; and on the F S - 2 9 9 Application for renewal

Georgia Sta te Case s:OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS for the STATE OF GEORGIADocke t Numbers : OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1215136-60-MALIH I ;OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1215137-60-MALIH I ;OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1216218-60-MALIH I ;OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1216823-60-MALIH I ;Admin is t ra t i ve t r ia l cour t dec is ion c i t ing:A n ke nv v . Gov ernor o f S ta te o f I nd ian a ( I nd . App . 200 9) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 14

Me m ora nd um of Law by Mar io Apuz zo, Esq. show n as Exh ib i t 12 14

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in sched uling Page 4 of 22


5/22

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

Re: the Feb ruary 3, 20 12 Judge Mal ih i Decis ion sho wn as Exh ibi t 13 14The Law o f Na t i ons : o r. P r i nc ip l es o f t h e l aw o f na tu re by Emer de Va t t e land Joseph Ch i t ty at Sec t ion 212 19Congres s iona l G lobe a t p . 1862 o f t h e 3 7 * Congress 2" ' ' ses. p . 1639 15The 39"^ Congress sess ion Senate 62 . On Janua ry 5 , 1866 and repor tedou t o f Com mi t t ee on January 1 1 , 1866 15the debates in 1866 Congress iona l G lobes a t 2883 16- 18

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T SL INTRODUCTION 1I L An A uthority Of Com petent Jurisdiction Reports that

T h e 2012 Certi f icate of Live Birth ( C o L B ) is a forgery 6I I I . An Author ity Of Com petent Jurisdiction Reports T hat a ll The Microfilm from August

1, 1961 through Aug ust 7, 19 61 is m issing from the National Archives 7IV . Th at Respondent Obam a's 2007 CoLB is a forgery with the 20 12 forgery 7\ L T hat Re spondent Obam a is suspect of not being born in the USA as a result that

Respondent Obam a Spol ia tes and Concealed Ev idence 8VI . T hat Respondent Obam a m ade an Ad m ission against Interest 11VI I . T hat Respondent Obam a has Unclean Hands 11VIII. T hat Petitioner January 6, 201 2 Petition do es not violate the Laches Doctrine 12IX . A s for de facto "Born a Ci t izen" of the 14 * A m endm ent versus de jure

"Natural-B orn Citizen" conflation by Public Officers and Re spond ents 13)C T he S tatutory Duties Of T he Cali fornia Se cre tary Of State A re In Conflict With

Regards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Cand idates 21

CONCLUSION 22



6/22

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

An Authori ty Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports thatT h e 2012 Certi f icate of Live Birth ( C o L B ) is a forgery

That subsequent to the January 6 , 2012 Pet i t ion f i l i ng , that on March 1 , 2012, theMaricopa County Arizona Sheri f f 's Press Release shown as Exhibi t 2 and Press Conferenceestab l i shed tha t ther e is the Pre l iminary R epor t by the Sher i f f 's COLD CASE PO SSE , asan au tho r i t y w i t h competen t j u r i sd i c t i on f o rmed to i nves t i ga te f raud and c r imescommi t ted by the campaign o f Barack Obama in the f i l i ng o f an a f f i rmat ion in 2008 thatRespo ndent Obama af f i rm ed compl iance w i th the U.S. Co nst i tu t ion Ar t i c le 2 Sect ion 1Paragraph 5 req u i re m en t for e l ig ib i l it y for "N atu ra l - bo rn c i t i z en " show n as Exh ib i t 3 is thesubject o f per jury , and current ly the submiss ion is pending before the Ar izona pr imarynow in 2012; and that the at tached Prel iminary Report of the Sheri f f 's COLD CASE POSSEshow n as Exh ib i t 4 sup por ts the susp ic ion w i th suf f i c ient ev idence tha t R espond entBarack Obama was not even born in Hawai i between August 1 1961 through August 71961 and acts to spo l ia te ev idence o f a cr ime - Quote:

" I nves t i ga to rs adv i sed Sher i f f A rpa io t ha t t he f o rge rs commi t t ed two c r imes :f i rs t , in c reat ing a f rau du lent doc um ent which the W hi te House cha racte r ized,know ing l y o r unknow ing l y , as an o f f i c i a l l y p roduced governmenta l b i r t h reco rd ; andsecond , i n f raudulent ly present ing that document to the res idents o f Mar icopaCou nty and to the Ame r ican pub l i c a t la rge as "p roo f pos i t i ve" o f Pres ident Ob am a'sau then t i c 1961 Hawa i i l ong - fo rm b i r t h ce r t i f i ca te .Dur i ng t he s i x -mon th - l ong i nves t i ga t i on and a f t e r hav ing deve loped p robab lecause to be l ieve the long - form b i r th cer t i f i ca te is a co m pu ter-g en era ted forg ery ,invest igators began examin ing o ther ev idence o f Pres ident Obama's l i fe h is toryi n c l u d i n g : .

Presiden t Ob am a's Selec t ive Service card is m ost l ikely also a for ge ry , revealedby an examina t i on o f t he pos ta l da te s tamp on t he document ; To que l l the popular idea tha t Obam a was actua l l y born outs ide the Un i tedStates, we examined the Records o f Immigrat ion and Natura l i za t ion Serv icecards rout ine ly f i l l ed out by a i rp lane passengers arr i v ing on in ternat iona l f l i gh tstha t or ig ina ted outs ide the Uni ted Sta tes in the m on th o f Aug ust 1 9 61 . Thoserecords are housed at the Nat iona l Arch ives in Washington, D.C. In terest ing ly ,



7/22

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reco rds f rom the days su r round ing Obama 's b i r t h , Augus t 1 , 1961 t o Augus t 7 ,1961 a re miss ing . Th i s is t he on l y week in 19 61 w [h ] e r e t hese imm ig ra t i oncards cannot be found. "An Authori ty Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from

August 1, 1961 through A ugust 7, 1961 is missing from th e National ArchivesThat in add i t ion to the ev idence o f forgery o f the Select i ve Serv ice record before the

2008 e lec t ion a long w i th the thef t and tamper ing o f the US DOS Passpor t records by USDOS pr ivate cont ractor ent i t y under the cont ro l o f John Brennan current ly RespondentObama's Whi te House Counter Terror ism adv isor hav ing prev ious ly been ass is tant toCent ra l In te l l igence D i rector George Tenent , and as such under l ines the susp ic ion why themicro f i lm records f rom the Nat iona l Arch ives are miss ing now as w e l l , as both agenc iesare under the d i rec t author i t y and cont ro l o f Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper inthe of f ice of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microf i lm and the missing U.S. DOSrecords re ferenced in the cover le t ter shown in Exh ib i t 8 prov ides the Cour t here in w i thsubstant ia l d i rec t ava i lab le proof that Respondent Obama is now d i rec t l y ac t ing in acont inu ing pat tern to spo l ia te ev idence and usurp the o f f i ce o f POTUS.

Tha t Responden t Obama 2007 CoLB i s a f o rge ry w i t h t he 2012 f o rge ryThat according to the Prel iminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibi t

4 , the purported Cert i f icate of L ive Bi r th (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibi t 5 is a forgeddocument as submi t t ed t o t he en t i re na t i on by Responden t Barack Obama and a t t o rneysat h is Apr i l 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference accord ing to the t ranscr ip tshown as Exh ib i t 6 : and

The Forged do cum en t shown as Exh ib i t 5 a lso now jo in s the prev ious ly 2 007 pro f fere dCoLB shor t fo rm document as i f in 2008 that i s a forgery as wel l based upon theadmiss ions o f the Respondent Obama and h is a t torneys there a t the Whi te House at the

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Con tinuance in sched uling Page 7 of 22


8/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

Apr i l 27, 201 1 press conference . In the t rans cr ip t shown as Exh ib i t 6 , th at a t the Apr i l 27,20 11 press conferenc e the Whi te House at tor ne y repeated ly sa id tha t Respo ndent O bamahad requested the shor t fo rm CoLB in 2008 f rom the Sta te o f Hawai i be re leased whne i ffac t the forged CoLB shows the 2007 s tamp before the a l leged request was made toHawa i i . However , examina t i on by Pe t i t i one r o f t he supposed document Hawa i i supposed l yre leased in 200 8 is s tam ped Jun e 6, 20 07 sh ov /n a t Exh ib i t 7 as the FactCheck.org repo r ton Augus t 2 1 , 20 08 ; and t he l a te r as t he Novem ber 2 1 , 2008 repo r t appended shows theso-ca l led Factcheck.org invest igators , depended on by members o f Congress and Media ,were par t i san am ateu rs accord ing to E l ig ib i l i t y Up da te: FactCh eck.org Do esn ' t DoForen s ics ; NH SOS a n d Ce r t i f i ca tes; Br i t i sh Pol i cema n on E l ig ib i l it y ' ' , and thereb y a l l theforego ing prov ides suf f i c ient susp ic ion o f f raud and or s ta tements made as admiss ionagainst in terest as a bar under c lean hands doct r ine o f I r re fu tab le presumpt ion o f wrongdoing by Respondent Obama and h is agents in 2008 and cont inu ing current ly .

That Respondent Obama Spol ia tes and Concealed Ev idenceBased upon the forego ing Respondent Obama Spol ia tes and Concealed Ev idence accord ingto the def in i t ion in B lack 's Law Dic t iona ry tha t def ines "sp o l ia t ion " as , " t he in tent ion a ldes t ruc t i on , mu t i l a t i on , a l t e ra t i on , o r concea lmen t o f ev idence , usu . a document " (1 ) .Spol ia t ion most commonly becomes an issue in product l iab i l i t y and neg l igentins ta l la t ion/serv ic ing c la ims, where the defect i ve product or the i tem negl igent lyins ta l led/se rv iced goes miss ing a f ter the loss, there by l imi t ing an d/o r prec lud ing p la in t i f ff rom being able to prove i ts c la im. This loss is usual ly due to negl igence, but in someinstances the loss is occasioned by intent ional and wi l l fu l conduct .

E lements o f Spol ia t ionW i th in the jur i sd ic t ions wh ich have recognized a sepa rate indep end ent tor t , ther e is



9/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation andagainst whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories: 1)spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit forwhich the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third partywhose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and 2) whetherthe spoliation was Intentional or negligent. As the less culpable "negligent" spoliationclaim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off viadiscovery sanctions (first party), this article wil l focus on the more affirmative andegregious intentional spoliation, which - as noted above - first gave rise to spoliation asan affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of anindependent intentional spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim:

1) pending or probable l it igation involving the spoliation plaintiff;2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is

probable;3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the

spoliation plaintiff 's underlying case;4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff 's underlying case; and5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant's acts.

That although the State of California does recognize a separate cause of action forspoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, andunclean hands in the m atte r of a bar against Respondent Obama from u sing the defensestha t were referenced in the respective demu rrer as a ma tter of defense claimed. That theCalifornia Court's recognition of an intentional spoliation claim was eventually overruled bythe California Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 9 of 22


10/22

1

2

3

4

5

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Ca. 19 98 ) . Tod ay, Cal i fo rn ia - the b i r thp lace o f th e indep end ent spo l ia t ion cause o fact ion - does not recognize the tor t as a s tand a lone c la im.

However , as th is case may be the Respondent OBAMA Whi te House webs i te hasrem ove d the m ul t i laye r CoLB re lease as a forg ery on or abou t Apr i l 27 , 20 11 and has no ton ly " f la t tened the" pdf image but concealed i t . The concept o f spo l ia t ion app l ies genera l l yto the dest ruct ion o f ev idence and, l i ke per jury , goes to the hear t o f the jud ic ia l process.By statute and procedural ru les, states and the Federal Rules of Civ i l Procedure (FRCVP)prov ide var ious sanct ions for fa i l i ng to comply w i th d iscovery ob l igat ions to produceev idence wh i ch cover mos t p rob lems and p rov ide remed ies rang ing f rom mone ta rycompensa t i on o r pena l t i es t o en t ry o f j udgment . I n add i t i on o r t o comp le te t he coverage ,s ta tes and the federa l cour ts prov ide remedies by app l i ca t ion o f the spo l ia t ion concepte i ther as a procedura l remedy w i th in the case or as a separate tor t .

In Cal i fo rn ia , the independent tor t o f spo l ia t ion was e l iminated in favor o f app ly ing therem edy w i th in the pend ing l i t iga t ion as a d iscovery san ct ion. C eda rs-S lna l Me dica l Ct r . v .Su pe r ior Cour t {1 99 8) , 18 Cal . 4 th 1 , 12. In federa l cou r ts , the spo l ia t ion concept w asrecognized as ear ly 18 17 in The FOR TUN A Krause e t a l . C la ima nts , In f ra , i s based on theinherent power o f cour ts to cont ro l abuses in l i t i ga t ion, and o f ten ar ises f rom a request fora ju ry ins t ruc t ion re adverse in feren ce. Le wy v . Re min gto n A rm s {8^^ C i r 19 88 ) , 836 F.2d1104 , 1 1 1 1 . WIg lngton v . CB Rich ard E l li s {10/2A /Q3 N.D. I l l ) [p .7 s l ip op in ion. "A p ar tyhas a du ty to preserve ev idence over which i t had cont ro l and ' reasonably kn ew or cou ldreasonably foresee was mater ia l to a potent ia l lega l ac t ion. ' . . . "A par ty must preserveev idence that i s proper ly d iscoverab le under Rule 26. D iscoverab le ev idence inc ludese lect ron ic data such as e-m ai l . " . . . " A par ty does not have to go to ext r aor d ina ry me asure sto preserve a l l potent ia l ev idence. . . I t does not have to preserve every s ing le scrap o f



11/22


12/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pla in t i f f 's unre la ted corrupt ac t ions and genera l immora l character would be i r re levant .The defendant must show that p la in t i f f mis led the defendant or has done someth ingwrong regard ing the mat ter under cons iderat ion. The wrongfu l conduct may be o f a lega lor mora l nature , as long as i t re la tes to the mat ter in i ssue.

For example. I f a se l le r sues a customer for payments on a cont ract , defendant mayc la im p la in t i f f has unc lean hands because he f raudulent ly induced h im to s ign thecontract . A court of equi ty wi l l not decide issues of fa i rness and just ice i f i t is shown thatthe pe rson ask ing for such jus t i c e has acted wron gly in regard to the i ssue a t hand . Inano the r examp le , when a b roke rage f i rm c l a imed tha t i t s con f i den t i a l c l i en t i n fo rmat i onwas be ing p i l fe red by the compet i t ion, the cour t he ld that the f i rm d id not come to cour tw i th "c lean hands" s ince the cour t found that f i rm demonst ra ted a s imi lar lack o f regardfor the compet i tor 's conf ident ia l c l ient in format ion when i t snared the same broker s ixyears ear l ie r .

The doctr ine has of ten been appl ied in the context of fami ly law issues, speci f ical ly incases o f f inanc ia l miscon duct . F raudulen t conduct has been a fac tor in aw ard ing sup por tand d iv is ion o f proper ty , among other i ssues. In th is case for a l l o f the above reasons o fconcealment , spo l ia t ion, par t i c ipat ing in forg ing o f pub l i c documents , f raud, admiss ionagainst in terest in ter a l ia bar th is Cour t f rom grant ing any re l ie f requested by RespondentObam a and his age nts in the February 1 5, 201 2 De m urrer .

That Pet i t ioner January 6 , 2012 Pet i t ion does not v io la te the Laches Doct r ineNotwi ths tand ing the above assor ted l i s t o f bars to Respondent Obama c la iming a

defense o f laches paramount are the spo l ia t ion and concealment that have in juredPet i t ioner a long w i th those s imi lar l y , who never the less f iled a t ime ly pe t i t ion w i th in th es ta tu to ry t ime as w i t h any o f t he cand ida te i nvo l ved a l so and t he reby f o r t he Responden t

Pamela B arnett's M emorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alterna tive W rit for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Con tinuance in sched uling Page 12 of 22


13/22

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

Obama to invoke laches is asser t ing that an oppos ing par ty has "s lept on i t s r ights , " andthat , as a resu l t o f th is de lay, c i rcumstances have changed such that i t i s no longer jus t togrant the p la in t i f f 's or ig ina l c la im. Put another way, fa i lu re to asser t one 's r ights in at ime ly ma nne r can resu l t in a c la im be ing ba rred by laches as a form of es to pp el for d e lay.

In mo st contex ts , an essent ia l e leme nt o f laches \s the req u i re m en t that the par tyinvok ing the doct r ine has changed i t s pos i t ion as a resu l t o f the de lay. In o ther words, thedefendant i s in a worse pos i t ion now than a t the t ime the c la im should have been brought .For exa m ple , the de lay in asser t ing the c la im ma y ha ve caused a grea t increase in thepotent ia l damages to be awarded, or assets that cou ld ear l ie r have been used to sat i s fythe c la im may have been d is t r ibuted in the meant ime, or the proper ty in quest ion mayal ready have been so ld , or ev idence or tes t imony may no longer be ava i lab le to defendaga ins t t he c l a im.

Under the Uni ted States Federal Rules of Civ i l Procedure, laches is an af f i rmat ivedefens e, which m eans tha t the burden of asser t ing laches \s on the par ty respo nding tothe claim to which it applies. "Wh en the defense of laches is clear on the face of thecom plaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid theinsuperable bar, a court m ay consider the defense on a motion to dismiss." Solow v. NineWest Group. 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001); Simons v. United States.452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d C i r . 1971) (a f f i rming Rule 12(b)(6) d ismissa l based, in par t , onlaches where papers " revea l no reason for the inord inate and pre jud ic ia l de lay" )

As f o r de f ac to "B orn a C i t i zen " o f t he 1 4 * Am en dm ent ve rsus de j u r e "N a tu ra l -BornCi t i zen " conf la t ion by Publ i c Of f i cers and Respondents

As the Pet i t ioner 's a f f i rmat ion shown wi th Exh ib i t 8 in the le t ter o f the members o fCongress and var ious pub l i c o f f i cers inc lud ing the var ious Cour ts hav ing made ser ious

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continua nce in sched uling Page 13 of 22


14/22

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

errors as evident in Exhibi t 13 and by the analysis provided in Exhibi t 12 by Mario Apuzzo,Esq. of Ankeny and Georgia Mal ih i decis ion as wel l as the CA SOS inst ruct ion to use the1 4 * Am end m ent "Bo rn a C i t i zen " i d i om ra the r t han t he t e rm o f a r t " n a tu ra l -bo r n C i t izen "in d i rec t con t rad ic t ion th e ins t ruc t ions sho wn on Exh ib i t 1 goes to not on ly grossnegl igence in the co l lapse o f our educat ion system but to the mal ice invo lved w i thpar t i san v i res u l t ra b ias favor ing the Respondent Obama here in in breach o f the inherentduty created for a l l pub l i c o f f i cers in the sworn oath requ i red w i th CA Const Ar t i c le 20.

The h i s to ry o f t he 13* Amendment t o abo l i sh s l ave ry was adop ted on December 6 ,1 8 6 5 , and the 14* amendment , wh i ch made the C i v i l R igh t s Ac t cons t i t u t i ona l wasproposed on June 13, 1866 and a f ter much debate, was adopted on Ju ly 9 , 1868. So theywere a l l dea l t w i t h , dur i ng t he same t ime f rame, w i t h t he same Congressman i nvo l ved , i neach bi l l . The 14* amendment rep resen ted t he ove r ru l i ng o f t he D red Sco t t dec i s i on ru l i ngthat b lack people were not , and cou ld not become, c i t i zens o f the Uni ted Sta tes or en joyany o f the pr iv i leges and immuni t ies o f c i t i zensh ip .

The Civi l Rights Act of 1866 had al ready granted U.S. c i t izenship to al l persons bornin the Uni ted Sta tes, as long as those persons were not sub ject to a fore ign power; thef ramers o f the Four teenth Amendment added th is pr inc ip le in to the Const i tu t ion toprevent the Supreme Cour t f rom ru l ing the C iv i l R ights Act o f 1866 to be unconst i tu t iona lfor lack o f congress iona l author i t y to enact such a law and to prevent a fu ture Congressf rom a l ter ing i t by a mere major i t y vote .

Which means the C iv i l R ights Act o f 1866 s t i l l s tands because the 14* amendmentwas never repea led , and t ha t t he l e f t / p rog ress i ves have t o ta l l y pe rve r ted t he 14*Am end m ent w i t h t he i r B i r t h r i gh t C it izensh ip l ie . To t ru l y unders tand t he 1 4 * A me ndm ent

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Con tinuance in sche duling Page 14 of 22


15/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

and what the f ramers or ig ina l in tent was when wr i t ing i t , you, must go back to thef ramers wr i t ings and the congress iona l debates.

The log ica l leg is la tors to research in regard to debates i s Senator Lyman Trumbul lwho was the author o f the C iv i l R ights Act o f 1866 and Co-author o f the 14* amendment 'sc i ti zensh ip c lause and co -au tho r o f t h e 1 3 * am end me nt t o abo l ish s l ave ry was I ll i no isSupreme Cour t Jus t i ce 1848-1853 .

Senator Jacob Howard worked w i th L inco ln to dra f t the 13* amendment . Served onthe Jo in t Commi t t ee on Recons t ruc t i on wh i ch d ra f t ed t he 14* Amendment t o t he Un i t edS ta tes Cons t i t u t i on , and was co -au tho r o f t he 14* amendment ' s C i t i zensh ip C lause .

The Honorab le John B ingham was t he p r i nc ip l e F ramer o f t he 14* Amendment ,Judge advocate in the L inco ln assass inat ion t r ia l and prosecutor on the impeachment o fAndrew Jo hnson ; and in t he ch rono log ica l o rde r o f t h e l eg i s l a ti ve deba te p resen ta t i onRepresentat i ve John B ingham as repor ted in the Congress iona l G lobe a t page 1862 of the3 7 * Congress 2" ' ' sess ion page 1639 s ta ted:

" there i s no such word as whi te in your Const i tu t ion. C i t i zensh ip , therefore , doesnot depend upon complex ion any more than i t depends upon the r ights o f e lec t ionor o f o f f i ce . A l l f rom other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compl iancew i th t he i r p rov i s i ons become na tu ra l i zed , a re adop ted c i t i zens o f t he Un i t ed S ta tes ;a l l parents owing a l leg iance to no o ther sovere ignty , are natura l -born c i t i zens.Gent lemen can f ind no except ions to th is s ta tement touch ing natura l -born c i t i zensexcept what i s sa id in the Const i tu t ion in re la t ion to Ind ians. . . "Next accord ing to the 3 9 * Congress 1^ ' sess ion Senate 6 2. On January 5 , 186 6 an d

repor ted ou t o f Commi t t ee on January 11 , 1866"A BILL to protect a l l persons in the Uni ted States in thei r c iv i l r ights, and furnishthe means o f the i r v ind icat ion. Be i t enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentat i ves o f the Uni ted Sta tes o f Amer ica in Congress assembled. That thereshal l be no d iscr iminat ion in c iv i l r ights or immuni t ies among the inhabi tants o f anyState or Terr i to ry o f the "

Then A wee k la ter there was an am en dm en t o f fered by Mr. Tru m bu l l to w i t :



16/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

"In section 1, l ine 3, after the word "That," insert, al l persons born in the UnitedStates and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, arehereby declared to be cit izens of the United States with distinction of color; and,"On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, i t was

determined in the affirmative. Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bil l as an Act went over the House ofRepresentatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull 's amendment. JohnBingham, speaks on the amendment to the bi l l saying:

" I f ind no fault with the introduction clause, which is simply declaratory or what iswri t ten in the Consti tut ion, that every human being born within the jur isdict ion ofthe United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, inthe language of your Consti tut ion i tsel f , a natural-born ci t izen;"The bil l was then sent to President Johnson, and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent

back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto; andthe next in Chronologically on to the 14* amendment as the congressional debates aswith tha t for the Civil Rights act wil l reveal how the presen t use has been perv erte d.The Bil l as proposed for the 14* amendment at f irst did not provide for a jurisdictionalstatement in Article 1 Section 1 quote:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi leges orimmunities if cit izens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any personof l i fe l iberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person withini ts jur isdict ion the equal protect ion o ft h e laws."During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:

"Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told fromday to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound polit icalsagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which wil lmake it as permanent as the everlasting hil ls and as invulnerable as the throne ofthe Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason wil l no longer be possiblewithin i ts jur isdict ion.Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech stated ...

"Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have nodoubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legaldefinit ion of "cit izenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is itsPamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 16 of 22


17/22

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest wouldfavor us with some such definit ion. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant inCalifornia a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so,what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the UnitesStates? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from GreatBritain, he is entit led, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannotmurder him with impunity. It is murder to ki l l him, the same as it is to ki l l anotherman. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has aright to the protections ofthe laws; but he is not a cit izen in the ordinaryacceptat ion of the word.It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has notheretofore entit led him to the right to exercise polit ical power. He is not entit led, byvirtue of that, to be an elector. .."

And Senator Edgar Cowen goes further to state:"I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself,and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have thepower, not only of declaring who should exercise polit ical power within itsboundaries, but that if i t were overrun by another and a different race, it wouldhave the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger tomany of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California areto remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongolrace? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should thinknot. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a brad and general sense,have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of thecountry of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion,of di fferent m anners, of di f ferent tradi t ions, di f ferent tastes and sympa thies are tocome there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if theyhave an opportunity of poring in such an immigration as in a short t ime wil l doubleor treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless toprotect themselves? I do not know that the contingency wil l ever happen, but itmay be well to consider it while we are on this point.As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, Californiahas the right, i f she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of anyperson she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the Unites States...I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that theIndians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in themidst of that society and obtain the polit ical power ofthe State, and wield it,perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that."That on the matter of anchor babies is regards to how the term jurisdiction would

be applied. And agreed that there would not be a new definit ion of the term jurisdiction in

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 17 of 22


18/22

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

the proposed law and that as such Mr. Howard sa id quote :" Th is amendment which I have o f fered is s imply dec lara tory o f what I regard asthe law of the land a l ready, that every person born w i th in the l imi ts o f the Uni tedStates, and sub ject to the i r ju r i sd ic t ion, i s by v i r tue o f natura l law and or in theUni ted Sta tes who are fore igners , a l iens, who be long to the fami l ies o f ambassadorsor fore ign min is ters accred i ted to the Government o f the Uni ted Sta tes, but w i l linclude every other c lass of persons. Nat ional law a ci t izen of the Uni ted States.This wi l l not , of course, include persons born overseas. . . "

In rega rds to ju r i sd ic t ion Mr. Tru m bu l l a t 1866 in the Con gress iona l G lobe 2893 sa id"The prov is ions is , that "a l l persons born in the Uni ted Sta tes, and sub ject to thejur isd ic t ion ther eo f , " Now does the Senator f ro m Wiscons in pre ten d to say tha t theNavaho Ind ian are sub jec t to the com plete ju r i sd ic t ion o f the Uni ted Sta tes? W hatdo we mean by "sub ject to the jur i sd ic t ion o f the Uni tes Sta tes.?" Not owinga l leg iance o f anybody e lse. That i s what i t means. "

I n response Sena to r Howard responds quo te :" I concur ent i re ly w i th the honorab le Senator f rom I l l i no is , in ho ld ing that the word" jur i s d ic t ion, " as here employed, ought to be const rued so as to imply a fu l l andcomplete ju r i sd ic t ion on the par t o f the Uni ted Sta tes, coextens ive in a l l respectswi th the const i tu t iona l power o f the Uni ted Sta tes, whether exerc ised by Congress,by the exe cut ive , or by the jud ic ia l de pa r tm en t ; tha t is to say, the sam e jur isd ic t ionin extent and qua l i t y as app l ies to every c i t i zen o f the Uni ted Sta tes now. Cer ta in ly ,gen t lem en cann ot conten d tha t an Ind ia n be long ing to a t r ib e, a l thou gh born w i th inthe l imi ts o f a Sta te , i s sub ject to th is fu l l and complete ju r i sd ic t ionThe SCOTUS in M inor v Ha pp ers et t s ta ted " i t w as never do ubted th at a l l ch i ld ren

born in a count ry o f parents who were i t s c i t i zens became themselves, upon the i r b i r th ,c i t i zens a lso. These were nat ives, or natura l -born c i t i zens.

In SCOTUS Case Respub l ica v D E LONGCHAMPS 1 US 11 1 (1 78 4) 1 Dal l . I l l -M'Kean, Chief Just ice. This is a case of the f i rst impression in the Uni ted States. I t mustbe de te rmined on t he p r i nc ip l es o f t he Law o f Na t i ons , wh i ch f o rm a pa r t o f t he mun i c i pa ll aw o f Pennsy l van ia ; and , i f t he o f f enses charged i n t he i nd i c tmen t have been commi t t ed ,there can be no doubt , that those laws have been v io la ted.The Chief Just ice goes on to say:



19/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

"There fo re , we conc lude , t ha t t he De fendan t canno t be impr i soned , un t i l h i s mos tChr is t ian Majesty sha l l dec lare , that the reparat ion i s as sat i s fac tory '3 " the answerto the forego ing answers hav ing been g iven, i t on ly remains for the Cour t topronou nce sentenc e upon you . Th is sentence m ust be gov erne d by a duecons ide ra t i on o f t he enormi t y and dangerous t endency o f t he o f f ences you havec o m m i t t e d , o f t he w i l l f u l ness , de l i be ra t i on , and ma l i ce , wherew i th t hey were done ,o f t he qua l i t y and degree o f t he o f f ended and o f f ender , t he p rovoca t i on g i ven , andal l o ther c i rcumstances which may anyway aggravate or ex tenuate the gu i l t . Thef i rst cr ime in the indictment is an inf ract ion of the law of Nat ions. This law, in i ts fu l lextent , is part of the law of th is State, and is to be col lected f rom the pract ice ofd i f fe re nt Nat ions, and the autho r i t y o f wr i te rs . Fur ther search w i l l ver i f y tha t theterm Law of Nat ions is ment ioned at least a dozen t imes on the page and theauthor Vat te l i s s ighted a long w i th each. "In the SCOTUS case The Venus. 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Just ice

Marsha l s ta ted " Vat te l who, though not very fu l l to th is po in t , i s more exp l i c i t and moresat is fac tory on i t than any o ther whose work has fa l len in to my hands, " says:

"The c i t i zens are the members o f the c iv i l soc ie ty ; bound to th is soc ie ty by cer ta indut ies , and sub ject to i t s author i t y , they equal l y par t i c ipate in i t s advantage. Thenat ives or ind igen izes are those born in the count ry o f parents who are c i t i zens.Society not being able to subsist and too perpetuate i tsel f but by the chi ldren of thec i t i zens, those ch i ld ren natura l l y fo l low the condi t ion o f the i r fa thers , and succeedto a l l the i r r ights . "The law of nat ions: or. Pr inciples of the law of nature by Emer de Vat tel Joseph Chi t ty

"Sect ion 212. The c i t i zen are the members o f the c iv i l soc ie ty ; bound to th is soc ie tyby cer ta in dut ies , and sub ject to i t author i t y , they equal l y par t i c ipate in i t sadvantages. The nat ives, or natura l -born c i t i zens, are those born in the count ry , o fparents who are c i t i zens. As the soc ie ty cannot ex is t and perpetuate i t se l f o therw isethan by the ch i ld ren o f the c i t i zens, those ch i ld ren natura l l y fo l low the condi t ion o fthei r fathers, and succeed to al l thei r r ights. The society is supposed to desi re th is,in consequence of what i t owes to i t s own preservat ion; and i t i s presumed asmat ter o f course, that each c i t i zen , on enter ing in to soc ie ty , reserve to ch i ld ren ther ight o f becoming members o f i t . The count ry o f the fa thers i s therefore that o f thec h i l d r e n ; and these become t rue c i t i zens mere ly by the i r tac i t consent . "In reg ards to K im Wong Ar k \ r \ Chester Ar thu r and Justice Gray in E lk v Wi lk ins 112

US 94 (1884) Argued Apr i l 28, 1884 Dec ided November 3 , 1884, and i t seems that Just i ceHorace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the t ime Wong K im Ark came a long 15 yearslater he had forgot ten i t ! Quot ing Just ice Gray f rom the SCOTUS Elk

Pamela Barnett's Memorandum of Points and Authorit ies for a Alternative Writ for ExpeditedHearing on Merits and Con tinuance in sched uling Page 19 of 22


20/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"The d is t inc t ion between c i t i zensh ip by b i r th and c i t i zensh ip by natura l i za t ion i sc l ea r l y marked i n t he p rov i s i ons o f t he Cons t i t u t i on , by wh i ch "no pe rson , excep t anatura l born c i t i zen or a c i t i zen o f the Uni ted Sta tes a t the t ime of the adopt ion o fth is Const i tu t ion sha l l be e l ig ib le to the o f f i ce o f Pres ident . "And "The Congress sha l l have power t o es tab l i sh a un i f o rm ru le o f na tu ra l i za t i on "US Const i tu t ion, Ar t i c le I I Sect ion 1 ; Ar t i c le 1 , Sect ion 8 C lause 3 . By the Th i r teenthAmendment o f t he Cons t i t u t i on , s l ave ry was p roh ib i t ed . The ma in ob jec t o f t he open ingsen tence o f t he Four teen th Amendment was t o se t t l e t he ques t i on , upon wh i ch t he re hadbeen a d i f fe rence o f op in ion throughout the count ry and in th is Cour t , as to the c i t i zensh ipof f ree negroe s {S co t t v Sa nfor d , 19 How ard 39 3) , and to put it beyond do ub t tha t a l lpersons, whi te o f b lack, and whether former ly s laves or not , born or natura l i zed in theUni ted Sta tes, and owing no a l leg iance to any a l ien power, shou ld be c i t i zens o f theUni ted Sta te s and o f the s ta te in which the y res ide. S laug hter hou se Cases 16 Wal l 36, 83US 73; S t rauder v . West V i rg in ia . 100 US 303, 100 US 306.In the ma t te r o f the Oath to be take n to Am er ica for purposes o f natura l i zed c i t i zens h ip :

" I hereby dec lare , an oath , that I abso lu te ly and ent i re ly renounce and ab jure a l la l leg iance and f ide l i t y to any fore ign pr ince, potent ia te , s ta te or sovere ignty , o fwhom or which I have hereto fore been a sub ject or c i t i zen; that I w i l l suppor t anddefend the Const i tu t ion and laws o f the Uni ted s ta tes o f Amer ica aga inst a l lenemies, fore ign and domest ic ; that I w i l l bear t rue fa i th and a l leg iance to thesam e , th at I w i ll bears arm s on behal f o f the U ni ted Sta tes when requ i red by th elaw , t ha t I pe r f o rm noncombatan t se rv i ce i n t he a rmed fo rces o f t he Un i t ed s ta teswhen requ i red by the law that I w i l l per form work o f nat iona l impor tance underc iv i l i an d i rec t ion when requ i red by the law; and that I take th is ob l igat ion f ree lyw i t hou t any men ta l rese rva t i on o r pu rpose o f evas ion so he lp me God . "Immigrants becoming c i t i zens must take an oath o f so le a l leg iance to the USA. Now

why would that not be expected a lso o f c i t i zens born here? I f you are born to two c i t i zensparents , your a l leg iance is passed down. I f you are not born to two c i t i zen parents , youmus t t ake t he oa th , s imp le as t ha t !

Vat te l 's author i t y as an ins t i tu t iona l wr i ter ex tended to the USA where he was c i ted

Pamela Ba rnett's Me moran dum of Points and Authorit ies for a Altern ative W rit for Exped itedHearing on Merits and Continuance in scheduling Page 20 of 22


21/22

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

i n cour t cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 t imes on mat ters per ta in ing to thelaw of nat ions.

T h e Statutory Duties Of T he Cali fornia Sec reta ry Of State A re In Conflict withRegards To Verifying Eligibility Of National Presidential Can didate s

Based upon the forego ing. Pet i t ioner contends that In the mat ter o f th is Pet i t ion i t i sf i l ed on January 6 , 2012 before the pr imary to prevent ba l lo t access, and even were therespo ns ib i l i t y o f t h e CA SOS in a t im e- f ra m e he ld in suspen ded an im at io n, such is acon t rad ic t ion to pub l i c o f f i cer dut ies under the oath o f o f f i ce , notw i ths ta nd ing expressd i rec t ion f rom the Leg is la ture , records that Pet i t ioners /Pla in t i f f s s tand ing has proper lyaccrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen. AsS e c re t a r y o f S t a t e . Etc. . e t a l . N o . C 0 6 5 2 3 7 (C a l. A p p . D i s t. 3 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 2 ) [ 4 1 ]

"W e agree w i th Fu l le r tha t i t is the jud ic ia ry 's ro le to in terpr e t the law, inc lud ing theConst i tu t ion. But as we w i l l exp la in , our in terpre ta t ion leads us to the narrowconc lus ion tha t i t is not the jud ic iar y 's ro le to jud ge th e qua l i f i ca t ions and e lec t ionsof candidates for membersh ip in the Leg is la ture . Th is in terpre ta t ion does notinva l idate sect ion 13314, however , because the app l i ca t ion o f that sect ion i s notl imi ted to cha l leng ing the qua l i f i ca t ions and e lec t ions o f cand idates for membersh ipin the Leg is la ture . Moreover , because our in terpre ta t ion reso lves th is case, i t i sunnecessary to reach any o ther const i tu t iona l quest ions, even i f we might havejur isd ic t ion to do so. " AND"Severa l California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courtsof jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after aprimary election. ( In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal .2d 592; A l len v . Le iande (1912) 164Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts havejur isdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seek s to be a candidate at aprimary election.

ANDCourts in o ther s ta tes have conc luded that s imi lar prov is ions are not broad enoughto prevent the determinat ion by cour ts o f whether one who seeks to be a candidateat a pr imary e lec t ion possesses the requ is i te qua l i f i ca t ions. (See Comber v . Ashe( T e n n . 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; Sta te ex re l . Gra l i ke v . Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483S.W.2d 70; S ta te ex re l . McGrath v . Er ickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390. ) Th isCour t ag re es . " (emph as i s added )



22/22

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

CONCLUSIONThis Alternat ive Writ is required because on January 6, 2012 Peti t ioner's evidence thatBarack Obama was at least "Born a Cit izen" under the 14* Amendment def in i t ion ratherthan a "natural -born Ci t izen", wi th a Brit ish subject father already establ ished, and onMarch 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that thesame 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even "Born aCit izen" in the USA per se; and further, supported by evidence of falsi f icat ion, spol iat ion,concealment of records, admissions against interest under POTUS control thatsubstantiates need for ordering expedi ted inter im discovery for expedi ted evident iaryhearing on the meri ts by March 26, 2012 as print ing of bal lots starts on March 29, 2012.The Court must order: Barack Obama to release the August 1, 1961 though August 7, 1961 t rave l m icro f i lm; Barack Obama release evidence why he should not be barred f rom the bal lot proving

tha t he is actual ly a "natural -born Ci t izen" born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Cit izen parents; A Peremptory Wri t for Stay of CA SOS bal lot print ing unt i l further order; A denial of the Respondent Obama et al. February 15, 2012 Demurrer in its ent i re ty ; A cont inuance grant for CA SOS oppor tun i ty to amend the demur re r or answer to the

Prerogative Writ of Mandamus Peti t ion subsequent to this Alternat ive Writ evidentiaryhearing on the meri ts or about March 26, 2012 is dec ided;

A cont inuance in schedul ing on the January 6, 2012 Petition for prerogat ive wri t ofmandamus wi th stay and injunct ion hearing subject to the Alternat ive wri t ;

A cont inuance in schedul ing with suff icient reason that would require an amendedPetition fi led nunc pro tunc

For fu r ther and dif ferent rel ief that the Court deems necessary for speedy just icehere in.

Respect ful ly Submit ted,]

barnett memo mar15_12

Documents