AUGUST 17TH DISMISSAL HEARING TABLE OF CONTENTS Defendants motion to dismiss defenses.........................................................................................1 Opening statement...........................................................................................................................

2 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Cause of Action #1a)..................................3 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Cause of Action #1b)..................................4 ILLEGAL ACTS COMMITTED...................................................................................................8 OMITTED STATUTES...............................................................................................................15 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Cause of Action #1c)...............................24 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Standing #2a)............................................26 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Unjoined #2b)..........................................29 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Mootness #2c)..........................................29 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Laches #3)................................................30 Plaintiff responses to defendants (Defense motion ~ Venue Transfer #4)..................................30 Natural Born Citizen DEFINED....................................................................................................33 CREATE MOTION TO AMEND I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED FACTS NECESSARY FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ELECTION LAW ARTICLE A. Plaintiffs do not allege a substantial probability that requiring a certificate of candidacy would change the outcome of an election B. Plaintiffs have not alleged any illegal act or omission C. Plaintiffs lawsuit is untimely under EL 12-202 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT A. Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge EL 8-502 B. All persons affected by the declaratory relief requested have not been joined as parties C. Plaintiffs challenge to 8-502 is non-justiciable due to mootness III. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACHES IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, VENUE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
1

OPENING STATEMENT Your Honor, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existance. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." and it is not just a proponderance of the evidence or even beyond resonable doubt, but we have clear and convincing evidence that proves we have failed our Founders. Our Republic has been lost and I can not sit back and watch it happen. That is why I am here today. Voters have an interest in candidate ballot access requirements because voting for their preferred candidate is one means through which voters exercise their constitutionally-protected rights. Defendants allege that we are just going after Obama, but the core intent of our lawsuit is to compel the defendants to obey the law of the Constitution. The original intent of Article 2 Section 1 has never been altered by constitutional amendment and defendants are ignoring this requirement. The lawsuit was brought because defendants have refused to obey federal and state laws. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the defendants to overthrow our form of government by establishing they can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government. I can assure you this is not about Obama. My Ancestor Edward Dorsey, The Colonist, was one of the first 5 inhabitants of the original Maryland Colony and his son Colonel Edward Dorsey, Judge in the High Court of Chancery, was the first Keeper of the Great Seal, which is now in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is a defendant here today. The very first Maryland General Assembly, was held in Colonel Edward Dorseys townhome in Annapolis, while the courthouse was being built. He was appointed to read and inspect the very first laws of the Province. To see what has been done to the laws in Maryland, is unbelievable and I feel I have a responsibility to stand up for my ancestors and defend what they have given us. Colonel Edwards brother, the Honorable John Dorsey, was Justice of the Peace and was on the commission charged with laying out the town and port of Anne Arundel County. He was Captain in the Baltimore County militia in 1696 and I cant tell you how many of my family members sacrificed their lives in the Revolutionary War to give everyone here the freedom they now hold, but I can tell you that my Ancestry Family Tree is full of Revolutionary War Heroes and that is my main reason for being here today! The court calls it a "fundamental right" to "cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud" Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211 (1992) No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily violates this right. Wesberry v. Sanders - 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
2

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENSES I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED FACTS NECESSARY FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ELECTION LAW ARTICLE. A. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. 42 USC Sec. 1983 creates a federal civil cause of action against state officials for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution[.] 42 U.S.C. 1983. [T]he ultimate and indispensable element of such a claim is the deprivation of a constitutional right. Grubbs v. Bailes, 445 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 2006). Negligence is a distinct cause of action. The Restatement of Torts defines negligence as "conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm." Negligence generally consists of five elements, including the following: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (2) a breach of that duty (3) an actual causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm (4) proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable (5) damages resulting from the defendant's conduct. The defendants claim that requiring a certificate of candidacy would not change the outcome of the election is irrelevant, considering the dozens of omitted laws would have changed the outcome. Moreover, if it was made known to the voters that their state did away with the sworn oath of eligibility, every citizen would be outraged. A sworn oath is meaningless, when a candidate does not tell the truth, which is why there are laws to protect against this, but those laws were ignored, in order to put an ineligible candidate on the ballot. Had the defendants done their job in 2008, we would not be in this courtroom today and we would not have an ineligible person in the White House. Why would any state do away with a sworn oath, unless they were inviting fraud? Not requiring a certificate of candidacy, clearly changes the recourse to hold a candidate accountable, in the event they illegally make it on the ballot. When the state accepts a certificate of nomination for a candidate, that has the constitutional clause removed and then does not require an oath of eligibility from that candidate, they are in fact, violating their constitutional oath and committing fraud against the very citizens that they were put there to protect. Whether or not a certificate of candidacy would change the outcome of the election is irrelevant when proving a candidates eligibility. Due to the inaction of the defendants, the willful omittance of the law, their negligence in performing said duties and their breach of fiduciary
3

duties, they did not fulfill their function and did not remove an ineligible candidate, and therefore committed fraud on the public.

B. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED ANY ILLEGAL ACT OR OMISSION. The act or omission occurred when they violated the many laws to allow Obama to be illegally placed on the ballot. These illegal acts include: fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, official misconduct, dereliction of duty and failing to uphold a sworn oath of office. Defendants committed an illegal act, when they allowed a candidate to appear on the ballot, when clear and convincing evidence proves Obama is not eligible. Defendants conduct falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. Defendants acted negligently by departing from required duties assigned to them. Defendants had a duty to the plaintiffs and defendants breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct. The defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were in fact, harmed or damaged, when an ineligible candidate was allowed on the ballot, thereby diluting our vote. The first break in the chain was the DNC nominating an ineligible candidate. Secondly, the board should have never accepted the nomination for lack of eligibility. Lastly, the Secretary of State should have caught it, but they all failed at their job. Our Constitution has been overthrown and we currently have an ineligible person in the White House, illegally signing bills into law. He is illegally making executive orders, he is illegally appointing left wing extremists to our Supreme Court, which will completely change the future of this country for decades to come, as we have seen with Obamacare, when their votes should be void. The longer this fraud is allowed to fester in our government, and these illegal judges are allowed to vote, the more it compounds and creates more undue harm. When weighing the factors of injunctive relief, plaintiffs meet all requirements: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; (2) the balance of convenience determined by whether greater injury would be done to the defendant by granting the injunction than would result to the plaintiff from its refusal; (3) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; and (4) the public interest. Given the importance of the constitutional issues raised, plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and to develop a complete factual record. The burden of proof has somehow been removed from the person running for office and has been placed upon the citizens, who then have no redress because the state officials have circumvented the laws to bypass the only evidence of proof needed to charge the candidate with perjury and fraud. It is my inalienable right under the Constitution, that my President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, be a natural born citizen and at the present time, I am being abridged of those rights. Each defendant took an oath to support and defend those rights, on my behalf and they have failed to protect those rights under the Constitution and are in violation of: ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTS:
4

COUNT 1: FRAUD With unprecedented malice, defendants defrauded citizens of the state of Maryland by allowing Obama to be on the ballot. As a result of the actions by the defendants, plaintiffs suffered damages, which were foreseeable, proximate damages and actual damages, which include violations of our civil rights, emotional distress, defamation, slander and financial damages, not to mention the overthrow of our Constitution. When a law or other act of government is challenged as a violation of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause, courts nowadays primarily use two forms of scrutiny, or judicial review, which is used by the Judicial Branch. This inquiry balances the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights. If the governmental action infringes upon a fundamental right, the highest level of reviewstrict scrutinyis used.[30] To pass strict scrutiny review, the law or act must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. When the governmental restriction restricts liberty in a manner that does not implicate a fundamental right, rational basis review is used. Here a legitimate government interest is enough to pass this review. There is also a middle level of scrutiny, called intermediate scrutiny, but it is primarily used in Equal Protection cases rather than in Due Process cases: The standards of intermediate scrutiny have yet to make an appearance in a due process case. CRIMINAL LAW TITLE 8. FRAUD AND RELATED CRIMES SUBTITLE 3. IDENTITY FRAUD 8-303. Government identification document (a) "Government identification document" defined. -- In this section, "government identification document" means one of the following documents issued by the United States government or any state or local government: (5) a birth certificate; (6) a Social Security card; (7) a military identification; (b) Prohibited. -- A person may not, with fraudulent intent: (1) possess a fictitious or fraudulently altered government identification document; (2) display, cause, or allow to be displayed a fictitious or fraudulently altered government identification document; (4) display or represent as the person's own a government identification document not issued to
5

the person. (c) Penalty. -- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $ 500 or both. COUNT 2: NEGLIGENCE As top elections officials, defendants had a duty of due care, not to allow fraud. Defendants breached their duty of due care and acted in a negligent and reckless manner, with depraved disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs and public at large, by allowing an ineligible candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, with forged documents and under a name not legally his, to be a candidate on the ballot, running for the Presidency. Neglligence by the defendants was an actual and foreseeable proximate cause of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages in the form of deprivation of their civil rights, such as Fourteenth amendment right for redress of grievances, free political speech as represented by lawful, free of fraud elections. Plaintiffs suffered harassment, humiliation, defamation, slander and emotional distress, as well as economic damages, including illegal taxes. COUNT 3: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY The State Board of Elections By-laws clearly show that they must follow all duties assigned to it under the election law article. The Secretary of State and Board of Elections breached their fiduciary duty by knowingly allowing a candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, who is using forged and fraudulent identification papers and who is hiding his identity under the name Soetoro, to appear on the ballot as a lawful candidate for President. As a result of the breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs suffered damages including our right to free political speech through lawful, free of fraud elections. We have been subjected to humiliation, defamation, slander, ridicule and have suffered several years of emotional distress, trying to get any public official to pay attention. When they do not follow the required laws, they are in fact, omitting those laws. COUNT 4: BREACH OF TRUST Defendants willful act of omitting federal and state laws thereby allowing an ineligible candidate to be placed on the ballot, has breached the trust of the citizens of Maryland. The voting public expects defendants to follow the law when dealing with elections, to avoid a constitutional crisis and this breach has clearly created a constitutional crisis that needs addressing. Defendants claim that they follow the law, 8-502, but why are they allowed to disregard the rest? Are they allowed to just pick and choose the laws they want to follow? They took an oath to defend the Constitution and considering the evidence against Mr. Obama, they are doing just the opposite. They are defending the person that is not qualified and laying the burden on the people. We the People are not applying for the position, Obama is and he must be vetted. Congress held meetings and adopted a resolution on John McCain's eligibility, but completely ignored Obama and that resolution clearly states that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to citizen PARENTS.
6

COUNT 5: MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE (Nonfeasance) Nonfeasance can be charged when the duty is ministerial and mandated by law. A ministerial duty is one prescribed by law or superior authority and which does not involve discretion or the exercise of judgment. When the act is discretionary, it would be necessary to show that the failure to perform the act was corrupt. However, any intentional forbearance or deliberate refusal by an official to do what is unconditionally required by the obligation of the office is corrupt. An official mandated by law to perform a certain act is not permitted to judge in opposition to that which is required. Elements of Misconduct. In order to demonstrate that the crime of misconduct has been committed, you must prove that the offender was a public officer at the time of commission or omission of the alleged act. The act or omission must be proven to have been in the exercise of public duties or under color of office. Under color of office denotes that the offender was able to do the unlawful act because the person is a public officer or because of the opportunity afforded by that fact. In addition, the prosecution must show that the offender had a corrupt motive except where there was a failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty required by law. Limitations and Procedures. Maryland law provides that the prosecution of malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or a conspiracy to commit such offenses shall be instituted within two years after the offense is committed. If the offense is nonfeasance or if it is continued over time, the statute of limitations would not begin to be calculated until the duty ends or the offender resumes performance of the duty. COUNT 6: DERELICTION OF DUTY Defendants failure to conform to the laws required has resulted in harm to plaintiffs. The ommitance or refusal to perform assigned duties and to abide by the standing rules of the constitution and by-laws or perform the duties of the position appointed has resulted in failure by defendants. COUNT 7: FAILING TO UPHOLD SWORN OATH OF OFFICE Pursuant to Article 1, section 9 of the Maryland all defendants took an oath of office to support the Constitution and Laws thereof, which they have failed to do. Because the defendants have filed to support the laws of the Constitution, they are in violation of that oath. Md. Const. art. I, 9 Section 9. Oath of office Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, _____, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of _____, according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my
7

acting as _____. Md. Const. art. I, 11 Section 11. Refusal to take oath; violation of oath Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State. ILLEGAL ACTS COMMITTED The State Board's By-laws clearly state: Article 4 Section 4.2 - Political Activity A. Statutory requirements. The members shall abide by the restrictions to political activities provided under 2- 301 of the Election Law Article.

And 2- 301 of the Election Law Article clearly states: 2-301. Bar to political activities. (b) In general. (1) An individual subject to this section may not, while holding the position: (ii) use the individuals official authority for the purpose of inuencing or affecting the result of an election;

TITLE 13 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE 13-601. False statements, entries and electronic submissions. (a) Filings under oath. A person may not willfully make a false, fraudulent, or misleading statement or entry in any campaign finance report or other filing that is under oath and is required by this article. (b) Electronic submission. A person may not make an electronic submission of a prescribed form, affidavit, campaign finance report, or other document on behalf of another person without that persons express consent. (c) Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of perjury and on conviction subject to the penalty provided under the Criminal Law Article. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 13-601; 2002, ch. 291, 4; 2008, ch. 543.)
8

TITLE 16 - OFFENSES AND PENALTIES Subtitle 3 - Conduct of Election Officials Section 16-301 - Neglect of duties; corrupt or fraudulent acts. (a) In general.An election official or an official of a political party may not willfully neglect official duties under this article or engage in corrupt or fraudulent acts in the performance of official duties under this article. (b) Penalties. A person who violates this section is subject to a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 3 years or both.

16-901. Offenses relating to certificates of candidacy or nomination. (a) In general. A person may not falsely or fraudulently: (1) make, deface, or destroy a certificate of candidacy or certificate of nomination or any part of the certificate; or (2) file or suppress a certificate of candidacy or certificate of nomination that has been duly filed. (b) Penalties. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 3 years or both. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 16-901; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4; 2003, ch. 21, 1.)

16-1001. General penalty provisions. (a) Misdemeanor for which no penalty is specified. A person convicted of a misdemeanor under this article for which no penalty is specifically provided is subject to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $250 or imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months or both. (b) Disqualification to be election official or employee. A person who is convicted of any criminal violation of this article shall be disqualified permanently from serving as an election judge, board member, or employee of a board. (c) Disqualification of candidate found in violation. A candidate who is convicted of any practice prohibited by this article shall be ineligible to be elected or appointed to any public office or employment for a period of 5 years following the date of the conviction. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 16-1001; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4.)

MARYLAND CONSTITUTION (DECLARATION OF RIGHTS)

9

Article 2 The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article 4. That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.

Article 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Article 9. That no power of suspending Laws or the execution of Laws, unless by, or derived from the Legislature, ought to be exercised, or allowed.

Article 16. That sanguinary Laws ought to be avoided as far as it is consistent with the safety of the State; and no Law to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.

Article 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.

Article 20.
10

That the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People.

Article 44. That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

MARYLAND CONSTITUTION (COMMITTED) Md. Const. art. I, 7 Section 7. Laws to be passed for preservation of purity of elections The General Assembly shall pass Laws necessary for the preservation of the purity of Elections.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (COMMITTED)

Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Article 6 clause 2 Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute."
11

1st Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

5th Amendment (Due Process clause) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. DUE PROCESS dates back to the Magna Carta 1215 The original Magna Carta contained 63 clauses, many of which are not relevant today, but clause 39 still resonates loudly: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement [sic] of his equals or by the law of the land. Procedural due process refers to the aspects of the due process clause that relate to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes. It also applies to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. According to the principle of procedural due process, if a person is deprived of life, liberty or property, s/he is entitled to adequate notice, hearing, counsel, and a neutral judge. This principle follows the concept of fundamental fairness. Procedural due process requires the state and federal governments to follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. By placing such restrictions, it limits the governments exercise of power. Scope of Due Process Clause The Supreme Court has interpreted those two clauses identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: To suppose that due process of law meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.[6] In 1855, the Supreme Court explained that, to ascertain whether a process is due process, the first step is to examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in
12

conflict with any of its provisions . . . .[7] Due process also applies to the creation of taxing districts, as taxation is a deprivation of property. Due process typically requires public hearings prior to the creation of a taxing district.[8] "Person" The due process clauses apply to "legal persons" (that is, corporate personhood) as well as to individuals. Fifth Amendment due process was first applied to corporations in 1893 by the Supreme Court in Noble v. Union River Logging.[10] Noble was followed by in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. Procedural due process This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. Civil due process At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."[11] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[12] Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. The Supreme Court has formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[13] Levels of scrutiny
13

8th Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. prohibited by it to the

14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law: Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

OMITTED STATUTES:

STATE BOARD BY-LAWS:

14

Section 4.5 Level of Effort Members shall expend the time and effort necessary to ensure that they fully understand their duties and obligations as members of the State Board of Elections and generally understand important concepts in the administration of Maryland elections, such as: the process to register to vote; the purpose of provisional voting; general information about the voting systems; the absentee ballot process; campaign finance requirements; and important election deadlines. Officials told me that the only law they follow is 8-502, so clearly they do not understand their duties, when several laws were omitted. When you look at the duties under the State Board, there are several laws that they are not following including: On the Board of Elections Website under Candidacy, there is a chart labeled Qualifications for Filing Candidacy (below) This chart clearly states that the President & VP must be Natural Born Citizens as opposed to all other candidates. This without a doubt proves that just being born here doesnt make you a natural born citizen, because they are clearly showing a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. ADD CHART HERE

Section 4.6 Fiduciary Duty to the Board Members have a fiduciary duty of care and loyalty to the board. Members shall put the interests of the board ahead of partisan interests, personal interests, or loyalties to other organizations in an effort to ensure the successful execution of the duties of the board. Members may not share confidential or sensitive information with outside entities, including matters discussed during closed sessions of the board.

Article 5 Roles and Responsibilities Section 5.1 The Board A. The board shall carry out all duties assigned to it under the Election Law Article and federal law. (See Duties of the State Board and State Administrator).

US CODE VIOLATIONS

42 USC Sec. 1981. Equal rights under the law (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
15

equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

42 USC Sec. 1983 creates a federal civil cause of action against state officials for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution[.] 42 U.S.C. 1983. [T]he ultimate and indispensable element of such a claim is the deprivation of a constitutional right. Grubbs v. Bailes, 445 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 2006).

Under 42 USC Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. To prevail on a claim for damages for a constitutional violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must establish the defendant acted under color of state law and caused or contributed to the alleged violation. Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d

42 USC Sec. 1985 Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws;

42 USC Sec. 1986 Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful
16

act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; 42 USC Sec. 2000h-4. Construction of provisions not to exclude operation of State laws and not to invalidate consistent State laws Nothing contained in any title of this Act shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which any such title operates to the exclusion of State laws on the same subject matter, nor shall any provision of this Act be construed as invalidating any provision of State law unless such provision is inconsistent with any of the purposes of this Act, or any provision thereof.

MARYLAND STATUTES (ELECTION LAW ARTICLE)

ELECTION LAW TITLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBTITLE 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1-201. Statement of purpose The intention of this article is that the conduct of elections should inspire public confidence and trust by assuring that: (1) all persons served by the election system are treated fairly and equitably; (3) those who administer elections are well-trained, that they serve both those who vote and those who seek votes, and that they put the public interest ahead of partisan interests; (6) security and integrity are maintained in the casting of ballots, canvass of votes, and reporting of election results; (7) the prevention of fraud and corruption is diligently pursued; and (8) any offenses that occur are prosecuted.

ELECTION LAW TITLE 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE AND LOCAL BOARDS SUBTITLE 1. STATE BOARD 2-101. In general (c)(1)
17

(iv) conform to the restrictions specified under 2-301(BELOW) of this title; and (v) be subject to removal by the Governor for incompetence, misconduct, or other good cause, upon written charges filed by the Governor with the State Board and after having been afforded notice and ample opportunity to be heard. (d) Oath. -- Before taking office, each appointee to the State Board shall take the oath required by Article I, 9 of the Maryland Constitution.

2-102. Powers and duties (a) In general. -- The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process. (b) Specific powers and duties. -- In exercising its authority under this article and in order to ensure compliance with this article and with any requirements of federal law, the State Board shall: (9) make available to the general public, in a timely and efficient manner, information on the electoral process, including a publication that includes the text of this article, relevant portions of the Maryland Constitution, and information gathered and maintained regarding elections; (10) subject to 2106 of this subtitle and 13341 of this article, receive, maintain, and serve as a depository for elections documents, materials, records, statistics, reports, certificates, proclamations, and other information prescribed by law or regulation;

2-103. State Administrator (b) Specific powers and duties. -- The State Administrator shall: (4) supervise the operations of the local boards; (5) perform all duties and exercise all powers that are assigned by law to the State Administrator or delegated by the State Board; (c) Oath of office required. -- Before taking office, the appointee to the office of State Administrator shall take the oath required by Article I, 9 of the Maryland Constitution.

Title 4. Political Parties. 4-204. Constitution and bylaws. (a) Adoption. Except as otherwise provided in this article, each political
18

party shall adopt and be governed by a constitution and all bylaws and rules adopted in accordance with the constitution. (b) Required provisions. (1) The constitution and bylaws of each political party shall provide: (viii) if the political party is required to nominate its candidates by petition, procedures for determining which of two or more party members who qualify for nomination in the same contest shall be designated on the ballot as nominees of the political party; and (ix) for the adoption of rules governing the political party.

TITLE 5. CANDIDATES SUBTITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5-101. In general (a) Applicability. -- This subtitle governs the process by which an individual becomes a candidate for a public or party office in an election governed by this article. (b) Compliance required. -- An individual's name may not be placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters at an election unless the individual complies with the requirements of this title.

Subtitle 2. Qualifications 5-201. In general An individual may become a candidate for a public or party office only if the individual satisfies the qualifications for that office established by law and, in the case of a party office, by party constitution or bylaws. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 5-201; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4.)

Subtitle 3. Certificate of Candidacy. 5-301. In general. (a) In general.An individual may become a candidate for a public or party office only if: (1) the individual files a certificate of candidacy in accordance with this subtitle; and (2) the individual does not file a certificate of withdrawal under Subtitle
19

5 of this title. (b) Determination by State Board or local board. The appropriate board shall determine whether an individual filing a certificate of candidacy meets the requirements of this article.

5-302. Filing. (a) On form. A certificate of candidacy shall be filed under oath on the prescribed form. (b) Filing with State Board. The certificate of candidacy shall be filed with the State Board if the candidacy is for: (1) an office to be voted upon by the voters of the entire State; (2) the General Assembly of Maryland; (3) Representative in Congress; (4) the office of judge of the circuit court for a county; or (5) an office of elected delegate to a presidential national convention provided for under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article

5-304. Manner of filing. (c) Content. On the certificate of candidacy form prescribed by the State Board, the candidate shall specify: (5) a statement that the individual satisfies the requirements of law for candidacy for the office for which the certificate is being filed; and (6) any information requested by the State Board to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the individual under this subsection. (e) Acceptance by appropriate board. The appropriate board shall accept the certificate of candidacy if it determines that all requirements are satisfied.

The board wasn't able to determine if the requirements were satisfied because there was not form. You must first be qualified to get past the Board to be sent on to the SOS to certify by 8-502.

5-601. Candidates qualifying. The name of a candidate shall remain on the ballot and be submitted to the voters at a primary election if:
20

(1) the candidate has filed a certificate of candidacy in accordance with the requirements of 5301 of this title and has satisfied any other requirements of this article relating to the office for which the individual is a candidate, provided the candidate: (i) has not withdrawn the candidacy in accordance with Subtitle 5 of this title; (ii) has not died or become disqualified, and that fact is known to the applicable board by the deadline prescribed in 5-504(b) of this title; (iii) does not seek nomination by petition pursuant to the provisions of 5-703 of this title; or (iv) is not a write-in candidate; or (2) the candidate has qualified to have the candidates name submitted to the voters in a presidential primary election under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 5601; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4.)

5-701. In general. Nominations for public offices that are lled by elections governed by this article shall be made: (1) by party primary, for candidates of a principal political party; (2) by petition, for candidates not affiliated with any political party; or (3) in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the political party, for candidates of a political party that does not nominate by party primary. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 5-701; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4; 2006, ch. 120.)

5-702. Nomination by primary election. A candidate for public office of a political party shall be nominated in accordance with the requirements of Subtitles 2 through 4 of this title unless the candidate is: (1) nominated by: (i) petition under 5-703 of this subtitle; or (ii) political party under 5-703.1 of this subtitle; or (2) a write-in candidate under 5-704 of this subtitle. (An. Code 1957, art. 33, 5-702; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4; 2006, ch. 120.)

5-705. Certificate of nomination or election after primary election.

21

(a) In general. A certificate of nomination that entitles a candidate for public office to have the candidates name listed on the general election ballot and submitted to the voters at the general election shall be issued in accordance with this section. (b) Issuance of certificates of nomination. (1) The State Board shall issue a certificate of nomination to each candidate who files a certificate of candidacy with the State Board and who qualifies for the nomination. (2) The local board with which a candidate files a certificate of candidacy shall issue a certificate of nomination to each candidate who qualifies for the nomination. (3) A political party may have only one candidate as its nominee for any position to be filled in a general election. (4) A certificate of nomination may not contain the name of more than one nominee for each office to be filled at the election.

5-1203. Qualifying for general election ballot. (a) In general. At each general election, the names of the following nominees shall be submitted to the voters: (1) each candidate nominated under this title who has satisfied the requirements of this article or other provisions of law, provided the candidate has not: (i) declined the nomination; or (ii) died or become disqualified and the provisions of this article do not require that the name of the nominee nonetheless be submitted to the voters; (2) each nominee who has qualified for a presidential election under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article; and (3) each incumbent judge of the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals whose name is required to be submitted to the voters for continuance in office under Article IV, 5A of the Maryland Constitution. (b) Certification of nominees to the ballot. In accordance with Title 9, Subtitle 2 of this article, the State Board shall certify to each local board the name of each nominee who has qualified for the general election ballot as the nominees name is to appear on the ballots in that county.

TITLE 9. VOTING. 9-202. Responsibilities for preparation. (a) State Board to certify ballots.The State Board shall certify the content and the arrangement
22

of each ballot to be used in an election that is subject to this article.

9-207. Ballots Certification; display; printing. (a) Time of certification. The State Board shall certify the content and arrangement of each ballot: (1) for a primary election no more than 11 days after the filing date provided in 5-303 of this title; (2) for a general election: (i) in the year that the President of the United States is elected, at least 55 days before the election; and (ii) in any other year, not more than 18 days after the primary election; (3) for a special primary election, at least 18 days before the election; and (4) for a special general election, not later than a date specified in the Governors proclamation.

9-209. Judicial review. (a) Timing.- Within 3 days after the content and arrangement of the ballot are placed on public display under 9-207 of this subtitle, a registered voter may seek judicial review of the content and arrangement, or to correct any other error, by filing a sworn petition with the circuit court for the county. (b) Relief that may be granted.- The circuit court may require the local board to: (1) correct an error; (2) show cause why an error should not be corrected; or (3) take any other action required to provide appropriate relief. (c) Errors discovered after printing.- If an error is discovered after the ballots have been printed, and the local board fails to correct the error, a registered voter may seek judicial review not later than the second Monday preceding the election.

9-210. Arrangement of ballots Candidates and offices. (e) Names of candidates. (1) A ballot shall contain the name of every candidate who is authorized under the provisions of this article to appear on the ballot. (2) Each candidate shall be listed on the ballot in the contest for which the candidate has
23

qualified. C. PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT IS UNTIMELY UNDER EL 12-202 The act or omission occurred when defendants violated and omitted the many laws to allow Obama to be illegally put on the ballot. I filed my complaint within the time frame, so our lawsuit if definitely timely under 12-202. Under 12-202, I needed to file within 10 days after the act or omission was known to me. These omissions would 100% change the election and HAS changed the 2008 election. 12-201. Scope of subtitle. This subtitle applies to an issue arising in an election conducted under this article. 12-201 FOOTNOTE: Standing to assert a claim. In addition to limiting the types of issues the subtitle would cover, 12-201 of this subtitle, this section limits to registered voters the types of litigants who may seek to get their complaint before the court. For instance, a 15 year-old would have no statutory standing to assert a claim because a minor cannot be a registered voter. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). 12-202. Judicial challenges. (a) In general.If no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission: (1) is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and (2) may change or has changed the outcome of the election. (b) Place and time of filing. A registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of: (1) 10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; 12-202 FOOTNOTE: Required proof that illegal action may change or has changed election results. A court interpreting 19-5 determined that a petitioner in a contested election case was required to demonstrate only that the violation complained of might have changed the outcome, and a petitioner proves that an election law violation might have changed the outcome when the facts demonstrate a substantial probability that the outcome might have been changed. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). To sustain a judicial challenge pursuant to this section, the litigant must prove, by clear and
24

convincing evidence, a substantial probability that the outcome would have been different but for the illegality. This is the level of probability anticipated by (a)(2)s requirement that the judicial challenge be based on grounds that an illegal action may change or has changed the outcome of the election. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). Standing to assert a claim. Because (a) does not distinguish among voters registered by party or, for that matter, by no party, any registered voter has standing to sue under the statute, and assert the procedure laid out in 12-203 of this subtitle, and one need not be a registered voter in a particular political party to be considered a registered voter for purposes of 1-101(mm) of this article [repealed by Chapter 572, Acts 2005] or, therefore, this section. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). 12-203. Procedure. (a) In general. A proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Rules, except that: (1) the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require; (2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit court judges; and (3) an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court. (b) Expedited appeal.The Court of Appeals shall give priority to hear and decide an appeal brought under subsection (a) (3) of this section as expeditiously as the circumstances require. 12-203 FOOTNOTE: Standing to assert a claim against procedure. Because 12-202(a) of this subtitle does not distinguish among voters registered by party or, for that matter, by no party, any registered voter has standing to sue under the statute, and assert the procedure laid out in this section, and one need not be a registered voter in a particular political party to be considered a registered voter for purposes of 1101(mm) of this article [repealed by Chapter 572, Acts 2005] or, therefore, 12-202. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). 12-204. Judgment. (a) In general. The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and: (1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or (2) may change the outcome of a pending election. (b) Act or omission that changed election outcome. If the court makes an affirmative
25

determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall: (1) declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or (2) order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy. (c) Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election. If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may: (1) order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and (2) if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy, direct that the election for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court. (d) Clear and convincing evidence. A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence. FOOTNOTE 12-204 Terms and definitions. Pursuant to this section, a substantial probability, while less than a hundred percent, is significantly more than more likely than not and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697, 862 A.2d 1 (2004). Defendants claim that "9-209 provides only for defects in the ballot", however 9-209 clearly states "a registered voter may seek judicial review of the content and arrangement, or to correct any other error, by filing a sworn petition with the circuit court for the county." Is it not an error if there is an unqualified candidates name illegally placed on the ballot? Under 9-205(4), content includes: (4) the name, as specified in the certificate of candidacy, or as otherwise provided in Title 5 of this article, of each candidate who has been certified by the State Board; II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT A. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE EL 8-502. Judicial review of substantive due process violations When a law or other act of government is challenged as a violation of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause, courts nowadays primarily use two forms of scrutiny, or judicial review. This inquiry balances the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights. If the governmental action infringes upon a fundamental right, the highest level of reviewstrict scrutinyis used.[37] In order to pass strict scrutiny review, the law or act must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of claim, baseless though it may eventually prove to be, and inartistically as the complaint may be drawn. Therefore, under our rules, the plaintiffs allegations that he is suing in criminal libel should not be literally
26

construed. The complaint is hard to understand but this, with nothing more, should not bring about a dismissal of the complaint, particularly is this true where a defendant is not represented by counsel, and in view of rule 8{f} of the rules of civil procedure, 28 U.S.C., which requires that all pleadings shall be construed as to do substantial justice BURT VS. CITY OF NEW YORK, 2Cir., (1946) 156 F.2d 791. A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts, it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to recover. JOHN EDWARD CROCKARD VS. PUBLISHERS, SATURDAY EVENING POST MAGAZINE OF PHILADELPHIA, PA (1956) Fr Serv 29, 19 F.R.D. 511, DCED Pa 19 (1958) Firstly, plaintiff Mary Miltenberger has run for office several times in Maryland and each time she was required to swear under oath that she was eligible. The 14th amendment guards against states making a law to abridge the rights of another and the fact that she was required to fill out the form and Obama was not, therefore makes 8-502 a violation of her equal protection rights. The rule of law trumps the will of a corrupt majority. The law is the law and no one is above it. The law is what protects the rights of the one from the will of the majority. Equal treatment and protection under the law. The Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the 14th Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights, which are those rights, privileges and immunities held by all people, in distinction to political rights, which are the rights that inhere to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters. Secondly, 8-502 clearly states: 8-502. Candidates for President Primary election (2) The Secretary of State shall certify the name of a presidential candidate on the ballot when the Secretary has determined, in the Secretary's sole discretion and consistent with party rules, that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland, unless the candidate executes and files with the Secretary of State an affidavit stating without qualification that the candidate is not and does not intend to become a candidate for the office in the Maryland primary election. But according to the Charter and By-laws of the DNC, they are bound by the Constitution. DNC CHARTER PREAMBLE: What we seek for our Nation, we hope for all people: individual freedom in the framework of a just society, political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all citizens. Bound by the United States Constitution, aware that a party must be responsive to be worthy of responsibility, we pledge ourselves to open, honest endeavor and to the conduct of public affairs in a manner worthy of a society of free people. Lastly, I beg to differ that Obama is "advocated" in the media. (LIST EXAMPLES) Media: The means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely:
27

Media refers to: Broadcast media, communications delivered over mass electronic communication networks Digital media, electronic media used to store, transmit, and receive digitized information Electronic media, communications delivered via electronic or electromechanical energy Mass media, all means of mass communications News media (United States), the news media of the United States of America Published media, any media made available to the public There are three standing requirements: Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injuryan invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15] Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. The injury alleged was clearly traceable to the Government conduct plaintiffs challenge as Unlawful. The injury is imminent and not hypothetical. Plaintiffs challenge is against defendants illegal acts and omitted laws, which allowed an ineligible candidate to gain access to the ballot. 3-409. Discretionary relief. (a) In general.- Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a court may grant a declaratory judgment or decree in a civil case, if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, and if: (1) An actual controversy exists between contending parties; (2) Antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation; or (3) A party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege and this is challenged or denied by an adversary party, who also has or asserts a concrete interest in it. (b) Special form of remedy provided by statute.- If a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed in lieu of a proceeding under this subtitle. (c) Concurrent remedies not bar for declaratory relief.- A party may obtain a declaratory judgment or decree notwithstanding a concurrent common-law, equitable, or extraordinary legal remedy, whether or not recognized or regulated by statute. (e) Speedy hearing.- A court may order a speedy hearing of an action of a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar. Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is
28

entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION (1960), 2 Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535 B. ALL PERSONS AFFECTED BY THE DECLARATORY RELIEF REQUESTED HAVE NOT BEEN JOINED AS PARTIES. All parties have since been joined, therefore this defense is no longer valid. C. PLAINTIFF'S CHALLENGE TO 8-502 IS NON-JUSTICIABLE DUE TO MOOTNESS. The court has ample grounds for a declaratory judgment. The past acts have lasting consequences and plaintiffs continue to suffer consequences of the wrongful action, and thus, the court should not moot our claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Our case includes an issue that is of public interest and constitutional questions and thereby can not considered as moot. A case becomes moot when: (1) it appears that a party seeks to obtain a judgment upon some controversy, when in reality none exists; or (2) a party seeks a judgment upon some matter which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy. Mollinedo v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, 662 S.W.2d 732, 738 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Scholl v. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n, 520 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1975, no writ) (per curiam). A case is moot only when "(1) it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur ... and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Id. (citations omitted); see also Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Meese , 939 F.2d 1011, 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 1513 (1992). The defendants have failed to demonstrate how either of these elements have been satisfied. See Better Government Ass'n v. Department of State , 780 F.2d 86 (D.C. Cir. 1986) Case law is abundant establishing the viability of a declaratory judgment as a remedy, even if the issue of injunctive relief has been mooted. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hawarth , 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461 (1937); Super Tire Engineers Co. v. McCorkle , 416 U.S. 115, 94 S.Ct. 1694 (1974). Exceptions to the Mootness Doctrine: The Texas Supreme Court has recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, (1) the capable of repetition yet evading review exception"; and (2) the collateral consequences exception." See Gen. Land Office, 789 S.W.2d at 571. The former exception has been used only to challenge unconstitutional acts performed by the government. Id. The latter is invoked only under narrow circumstances, when vacating the underlying judgment will not cure the adverse consequences suffered by the party. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 789 (Tex. 2006). In order to invoke the collateral consequences exception, plaintiffs must show (1) a concrete disadvantage resulted from the judgment; and (2) the disadvantage will persist even if the judgment is vacated and the case dismissed as moot. Pirate's Lake Ltd. v. Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc., No. 14-08-00085-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 12, 2008) III. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACHES A motion to dismiss is proper if and only if it is beyond doubt that a legal claim cannot be
29

stated. Sutton, 173 F.3d at 1236. In this case, plaintiffs have pointed to substantial authorities that support the legal sufficiency of their claims. Their allegations far surpass the low threshold of establishing a nonfrivolous constitutional claim. Limitations and Procedures. Maryland law provides that the prosecution of malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or a conspiracy to commit such offenses shall be instituted within two years after the offense is committed. If the offense is nonfeasance or if it is continued over time, the statute of limitations would not begin to be calculated until the duty ends or the offender resumes performance of the duty. IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, VENUE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 3 - COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION/SPECIAL CAUSES OF ACTION Subtitle 4 - Declaratory Judgment 3-406. Power to construe. Any person interested under a deed, will, trust, land patent, written contract, or other writing constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, administrative rule or regulation, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, administrative rule or regulation, land patent, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it. Regarding defendants motion to transfer venue on grounds of convenience, and in the interest of justice, is contrary to convenience and justice for the plaintiffs. We prefer our case be heard in a Carroll County and not the county where the original fraud is taking place. We have no idea how deep this corruption lies in Anne Arundel county and to ensure, wed like to keep it as far away from there as possible. Additionally, I originally went to the Annapolis Circuit Court to file my petition, but was told I was in the wrong county and could not file there. I was told that because of the type of case I was filing and because I didn't live or work in that county that they could not allow me to file my petition. They did have three woman work with us, to try and find a way that we could file there, but after a few calls, they said no, refunded our money and whited out the stamps on our petition. I do have the receipt, which they allowed me to keep as proof that I tried to file there, in the first instance. So I can say without hesitation, that this case was not allowed to be filed in Annapolis in the first instance, therefore 2-327 is outside the scope of venue change according to: Niemeyer and Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary page 215: There are, to be sure, limitations on the transfer. Under 2-327 as cited in Payton Henderson v. Evans No. 1326, Sept. Term, 2007. -- June 02, 2008. "Obviously, if venue lies in only one circuit court and the action is filed in that court, a transfer
30

cannot be made under this section, even if another circuit court would be more convenient for all parties and witnesses. The transferee court must be a court where the action could have been filed in the first instance." Also, on the motion for change of venue, the fact that Plaintiff #2, Mary Miltenberger is 77 years old and lives in Cumberland, the more suitable change would be to have the case moved to Allegheny County, out of convenience and respect. Considering Carroll County is roughly thirty or so minutes away for the defendants and considering Mary must already travel two and a half hours, just to make it to Carroll County, it would be much more of a burden to make her travel another hour and travel back another 4 hours. Moving the case to Anne Arundel County would only cause more hardship on the plaintiffs. Granting this motion would cause a huge inconvenience on Plaintiff, Mary Miltenberger, considering she doesn't drive and lives in Cumberland, just about as far away as you can get from Annapolis. Asking Mary to make an 8 hour round trip, would then require her to get accommodations, in order to make it to the courthouse in time and cause unnecessary hardship. AUTHORITY URGENT: U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee, ADMITS THE PROBLEM! Judge Anderson concedes that the meaning of "natural born citizen" under the Constitution and the federal law WILL HAVE TO BE RESOLVED in this dispute. Indiana Judge Reid reversed her prior ruling and admitted that she dismissed prematurely. Judge Reid has allowed plaintiffs to move forward on 3 of 4 causes. Fraud, Negligance and Breach of Fudiciary Duty.

CONCLUSION Declaratory Relief ~ An actual controversy has risen between defendants and plaintiff concerning their respective rights and duties in that plaintiff contents as follows: Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights and the states duties. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances that plaintiffs may ascertain their right to free and fair elections. Plaintiff was deprived equal protection under the law. For the foregoing reasons, the governments motion to dismiss should be denied, and plaintiffs afforded the opportunity to proceed to discovery and develop a factual record in support of their claims. Plaintiffs respectfully request a hearing on this motion. Discovery and an evidentiary hearing will allow the plaintiffs to illuminate for this Court: (1) the evidence that proves our claim that Obama is not eligible to be Potus, which will in turn prove that the state is not doing it's job in following MD law and the Constitution, whereas candidates are elected according to the law. It is the states responsibility to certify qualified candidates and if the state doesn't do it's job, then they are contributing and are accessories to the fraud committed by Obama. Had they required the form, there would be recourse in getting Obama for perjury and fraud, but because this was circumvented, there is no paper trail or a sworn oath from Obama. Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts to establish that discovery will lead to evidence of unfair,
31

dishonest, tampered elections, official misconduct, fraud Plaintiffs Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual matter, and should be accepted as true, and states Plaintiffs claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendants are liable for the official misconduct and fraud alleged. Since President Obama does not qualify as a member of the class of persons identified as naturalborn citizens by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, he is not eligibleto be President of the United States, and his name, therefore, should not be allowed on Maryland's ballot for the 2012 Presidential election. Wherefore in consideration of the foregoing, and for such reasons as may be advanced during oral argument, plaintiffs respectfully request that this court deny defendant's motion to dismiss and move the case on. If this court deems any part of plaintiff's Complaint insufficient, then the plaintiff's request that this court grant them leave to amend! John Adams diary 11, 18 - 29 December 1765 DECR. 27TH. 1765. FRYDAY. In unforeseen Cases, i.e. when the State of things is found such as the Author of the Disposition has not foreseen, and could not have thought of, we should rather follow his Intention than his Words, and interpret the Act as he himself would have interpreted it, had he been present, or conformably to what he would have done if he had foreseen the Things that happened. This Rule is of great Use to judges. Vattell. Page 230. B. 2. C. 17. . 297. If a Case be presented, in which one cannot absolutely apply the well known Reason of a Law or a Promise, this Case ought to be excepted. B. 2. C. 17. . 292. Every Interpretation that leads to an Absurdity, ought to be rejected. Page 222 B. 2. C. 17. . 282.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED: IN RE THENAULT 47 F.Supp. 952 (1942) In re THENAULT. Naturalization Petitions Nos. 13928, 13929.
32

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. April 23, 1942. Sarah S. Thenault, pro se. Eugene Cole, naturalization examiner.

McGUIRE, Justice. These are petitions for the naturalization of Georges Spencer Thenault and Catherine Bathilde Thenault, respectively, minor children of Georges Thenault and Sarah Spencer Thenault, husband and wife, the former a French subject presently residing in France, and the latter a citizen of the United States presently residing therein, together with the children above referred to. Findings of Fact The child Georges Spencer Thenault was born in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, on May 28, 1930, and his sister, Catherine Bathilde Thenault, was born in Hyannis, Massachusetts, on July 22, 1928. Their father was at the time of their birth a citizen of France, as he presently is, and was attached to the French Embassy as Air Attache, although at the present time, and since 1933, he has been engaged in private business in France. Their mother is a citizen of the United States by birth, which citizenship she retained, aince her marriage took place in 1925 after the passage of the so-called Cable Act, September 22, 1922, 42 Stat. 1021, 1022. She is permanently residing in the United States. Conclusions of Law The sole question here presented is whether or not these children, although physically born within the territorial limits of the United States are entitled to be naturalized by petition of the citizen parent in this case their motherunder the provisions of Section 315 of the Nationality Act of 1940, Public Act No. 853, October 14, 1940, 54 Stat. 1137 at 1146, 8 U.S. C.A. 715. The Section reads as follows: "A child born outside of the United States, one of whose parents is at the time of petitioning for the naturalization of the child, a citizen of the United States, either by birth or naturalization, may be naturalized if under the age of eighteen years and not otherwise disqualified from becoming a citizen and is residing permanently in the United States with the citizen parent, on the petition of such citizen parent, without a declaration of intention, upon compliance with the applicable procedural provisions of the naturalization laws." Of course, the mere physical fact of birth in the country does not make these children citizens of the United States, inasmuch as they were at that time children of a duly accredited diplomatic representative of a foreign state. This is fundamental law and within the recognized exception not only to the Constitutional provision relative to citizenship, Amendment Article 14, Section I, but to the law of England and France and to our own law, from the very first settlement of the Colonies. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 et seq., 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, and the review of principles and collection of authorities therein found.
33

At the present time there is no nationality treaty with France. Do they then come within the provisions of the Nationality Act hereinbefore referred to? That is, must they have been born physically outside the United States in order to bring them within its purview, or may they be regarded as "born outside the United States" and thus within its provisions and may the citizen parent, the mother, as a consequence, petition for their naturalization? Although these children in a geographical sense were born within the United States, by virtue of the status of their father at that time, they became subject to the jurisdiction of the French Republic as effectively as though they were born within its territorial limits and outside those of the United States. They thus may be said to have been "born outside of the United States" within the meaning of the statute. While hearings were held antecedent to the passage of the so-called Nationality Code, the same were unprinted. The legislation was passed, however, for the purpose of effecting a complete revision of the laws of the United States relative to nationality, in the light of new conditions, to reconcile seemingly conflicting provisions of different statutes, and to "facilitate the naturalization of worthy candidates, while protecting the United States against adding to its body of citizens persons who would be a potential liability rather than an asset." (Letter of transmittal, dated June 1, 1938, addressed to the President by the Committee consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Labor, designated by him by the Executive Order of April 25, 1933, for the purpose of reviewing the nationality laws of the United States, "to recommend revisions, and to codify the laws into one comprehensive nationality law for submission to the Congress.") The reports of the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as their conference report, accompanying H.R. 9980 (76th Congress, 3rd Session, which finally became the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S. C.A. 501 et seq.), indicate a liberality of view with reference to circumstances which might be said to bear an analogy to those set forth in the present petitions. The petitions are granted. As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, "Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations." 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton: "When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281. Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said: "If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land." 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423. As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913).
34

Chief Justice Waite said: 'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' 'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. MR. JUSTICE GRAY (opinion) Chief Justice Taney, in the passage cited for the plaintiff from his opinion in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 60 U. S. 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were: "They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people." But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law. The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under
35

the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. ---------------------------------It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. 1992. Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, by being "naturalized in the United States," by or under some treaty or statute.

In the summer of 1793, Chief Justice Jay more thoroughly explained the theory behind prosecutions based on the law of nations. In charging the grand jury in Richmond, Virginia, he explained that the circuit court had cognizance only of offences against the laws of the United States, and that [t]he Constitution, the statutes of Congress, the laws of nations, and treaties constitutionally made compose the laws of the United States.253 In directing the grand jurors to return indictments for common law crimes against the United States premised upon offenses under the law of nations, Jay stated that their obligation to do so derived in part from the deference courts and individuals owe Congress in foreign affairs. The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question. If you look at the Georgia case where Judge Malihi claimed Obama was a natural born citizen, the two cases he cited were Ankeny v. Governor and Wong Kim Ark. Ankeny V. Governor clearly states in footnote 14 that: Footnote 14 Ankeny v. Governor "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitutions Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nations history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Justice Gray citing Mr. Justice Miller referring to the 14th Amendment "subject to its
36

jurisdiction" clause (16 Wall. 128, 129) "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Justice Gray also cites the slaughterhouse case, quoting Chief Justice Waite saying: "...it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first..." MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. In Elk v Wilikins Justice Horace Gray states: "Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. AND cites Trunbull's words about jurisdiction from 1866: It has occurred to me that, perhaps, the amendment would meet the views of all gentlemen, which used these constitutional words, and said that all persons born in the United States, excluding [112 U.S. 94, 114] Indians not taxed, and not subject to any foreign power, shall be deemed citizens of the United States.' Cong. Globe, (1st Sess. 39th Congress,) Again Gray says "IN HIS OPINION": "An examination of the debates in Congress, pending the consideration of that amendment, will show that there was no purpose, on the part of those who framed it or of those who sustained it by their votes, to abandon the policy inaugurated by the act of 1866, of admitting to national citizenship such Indians as were separated from their tribes, and were residents of one of the States or of one of the Territories, outside of any reservation or territory set apart for the exclusive use and occupancy of Indian tribes. Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) cites and supports for Minor v. Happersett, as it states: In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word citizen is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United
37

States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America Oath "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is credited with being the first to suggest that the Commander In Chief be a natural-born citizen. In a letter to GeorgeWashington, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." (App. Pg. 162.) Jay underlined born in his own hand. More interesting, perhaps, is that the letter isconcerned with the capacity of Commander In Chief. This provides clarity that the natural-born citizen clause is a national security measure. Jay appears to have beenuniquely focused upon a fear that the military might be infiltrated by foreign powers.Considering that he called for, a strong check to the admission of foreigners into theadministration of our national government, it makes sense that the natural-born citizen clause was designed to guarantee a singular allegiance to this nation. Anything less would not be a very strong check at all. If the natural-born citizen clause was intended as a unification of jus soli, and jus sanguinis, we would expect to have at least one Supreme Court decision in our national judicial history, which confirms that the natural-born citizen clause does, in fact, require a unified allegiance, via birth in the country to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett is that case. D. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The only Supreme Court decision which has directly construed the natural-born citizen clause from Article 2, Section 1, is Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). In that case,Virginia Minor petitioned the court to determine whether women were equal citizens to men, and further argued that if she was a citizen, her right to vote was protected by the14th Amendment, which she also claimed made her a citizen. The Court's unanimous decision declined to construe the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. Instead, the Court held that Minor was a citizen prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Minor v. Happersett, 88U.S. 162, 168. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in thecountry of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as natives, or natural-born citizens, but these were also further identified as being distinguished from aliens
38

or foreigners.The distinction is crucial.On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States, asdistinguished from those on the polar opposite side, who have absolutely no claim tocitizenship in the United States; These were natives, or natural-born citizens, asdistinguished from aliens or foreigners. Id. Those who fall in between these twoextremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. Id (Emphasis added.) The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73(1872). Only two years prior to Minor, the Court was of the opinion that persons born in the country to alien parents were not even citizens, never mind natural-born. Then, two years later, in Minor, the Court identified the specific class of natural-born citizens as those born in the country of citizen parents, but left open the issue of who was eligible to the general class of citizens. That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." The English common law rule partus sequitur patrem means that the child follows the condition of the father. The most extensive discussion of partus sequitur patrem comes from Ex Parte Reynolds ,20 F. Cas. 582, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666, 5 Dill. 394 (W.D. Ark., 1879), where the rule was strictly followed: [B]y the common law. . . [the] offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst.,198, 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28U.S.]242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: "Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. Again, on page 102, Vattel says: By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights. This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment
39

on the subject, must be the rule in this case. Partus sequitur patrem was also followed in In Re Thenault , 47 F. Supp. 952, 1942 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2195 (1942), where a French diplomat father was married to a natural-born citizen of the United States. Their child was born in the U.S., but was required to petitionfor naturalization. The child followed the condition of the father and was not entitled to U.S. citizenship on account of his native-born status to a citizen mother. For purposes of allowing the child to petition for naturalization, a fiction was observed by the Court, which held that, since the father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., the child was considered to have been born on French soil, and was therefore allowed to petition for naturalization as if he had truly been born abroad. The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question. And it was observed that the language used in defining citizenship in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 112 U.S. 99-103. DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE A Legal Examination of the Subject by Breckinridge Long ESQ, of the St. Louis Bar. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. The doctrines of dual citizenship and of double allegiance are too well known and too well founded in international law to be doubted or disputed. The doctrine of Election necessarily implies the existence of a double allegiance. This condition naturally arises where a person is born in one country to a father who is a citizen of another country. By rules of municipal law, which generally prevail, such a person has citizenships by birth(1) citizenship by virtue of the place of birth (jure soli) and (2) citizenship by right of blood (jure sanguinis) i.e., by virtue of the fathers nationality. Unless this be so, the child on attaining his majority has nothing to elect. (Moore, International Law Digest, III, 524-525.) The subject of double allegiance and dual citizenship is a well recognized doctrine of international law, and one with which all nations have to deal. The question has been presented many times and in many different ways to the government of the United States. That it has taken official cognizance
40

of the existence of double allegiance is not only not questioned, but is too well known to need references.

Laws and regulations of the College of William and Mary: in Virginia, Volume 276 By College of William and Mary 5. "The Professor of Political Law shall deliver Lectures on Natural and National Law, Political Economy, Metaphysics, Government and History. The Text Book on Natural and National Law shall be Vattel, with reference to Rutherforth's Institutes." Vattel's Law of Nations, order for the purchase of, for the use of the Senate ... 65 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:28:./temp/~ammem_adFE: Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate. Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas Philadelphia, December 19, 1775. Dear Sir: I received your several favors of May 18, June 30, and July 8, by Messrs. Vaillant & Pochard, whom, if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers, but gentlemen of mere science in les belles-lettres can not so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind. I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Ide sur le Gouvernement et la Royaut," is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expos de ce qui est pass entre la Cour Britanique et les Colonies," etc., being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 - May 15, 1776 Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin My dear Friend, Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos'd is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply'd with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly. (1) I have put into Mr Adam's Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus'd it, please to place it in your College Library. (2)
41

I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 - May 15, 1776 Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin My dear Friend, Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos'd is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply'd with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly. (1) I have put into Mr Adam's Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus'd it, please to place it in your College Library. (2) I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 8 September 19, 1777 - January 31, 1778 Elbridge Gerry to Thomas Wharton Dear Sir York in Pennsylvania Novr 8. 1777 The following Books are much wanted by some Gentlemen of Congress, & are not to be procured in this Place; if they are to be found in the Pennsylvania Library, which We are informed is removed by Order of your Excellency to Lancaster, I shall be much obliged to You for the Loan thereof being with respect your Excellency's very huml sert,(1) E Gerry Vattell's Law of Nations Grotius Puffendorf (2) Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 11 October 1, 1778 - January 31, 1779 Henry Laurens to William Alexander: My Lord. (Private) Philadelphia 29th November, 1778. I had the honor of writing to Your Lordship yesterday; Will you permit me now to ask a very great favor of Your Lordship, design'd more for the public benefit than for my private convenience or amusement, that Your Lordship will endeavor to procure for me as early as may be, one or two Copies of Vatell's Law of Nations. I would rather have two than one; when I learn the cost of it or them, the amount in Gold or Silver shall be immediately remitted. RELIEF SOUGHT: 1. 8-502 should be declared null and void or amended to remove all reference to the media and to require that candidates for president of the United States be required to fill out and sign and swear an oath to a certificate of candidacy which includes information about his or her parents birth.
42

2. a notice of censure be attached to the record of each defendant in this case for failing to uphold the constitution of the Sate of Maryland and the United States.and that these employees be removed from there jobs for failure to perform and that the legislature be so notified. 3. The legislature of Maryland be required to change 8-502 as suggested in Number 1. 4. That these actions be announced with a request to publish,to the AP, Reuters, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, USA Today, Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC. CBS. 5. That the name of Barrack Hussein Obama be removed from the 2012 general election ballot in Maryland because he does not qualify under the Constitution of the U.S. and Maryland for the office of President. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793) Ware v. Hylton, 3 US 199 (1796) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388 (1815) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) MacLeod v. United States, 229 U. S. 416 (1913) Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964)

43