Loading ...
Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama. The Petition charges that at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.
The Petition as amended claims that because Senator Obama’s father was not an American, but a British citizen at the time of the Senator’s birth, the Senator was disqualified him from being a “natural born citizen” as that term is understood under U.S. laws of nationality.
The plaintiffs argue that his British citizenship at birth also disqualifies him from being considered an American citizen automatically under the Fourteenth Amendment, because of competing jurisdictional interests between the Crown and the United States.
Plaintiffs have also argued that Senator Obama failed to establish by any evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii, or that he was naturalized as an American citizen.
Because Senator Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband Lolo Soetoro, plaintiffs allege that his legal name is Barry Soetoro, and the suit alleges that Senator Obama has failed to establish by any evidence that his name was legally changed back to his birth name.
Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for Plaintiffs, has called out the Secretary of State, saying “the Secretary of State is the chief election officer for all federal and state elections under 29A.04.230, and he has an obligation to run state elections in respect of federal law. This means if the candidate for President is unqualified, he has no business being placed on Washington ballots by the Secretary of State.”
Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to enforce this qualification.”
###
— For more information please contact:
Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Phone: 
(425) 605-4774
Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com
Perhaps there is NATIONAL CONSENSUS on the following;
A. There ARE eligibility requirements to be President IAW the Constitution.
B. Someone (Many) has (have) the responsibility to ENSURE eligibility requirements are met.
C. An ineligible candidate should NOT hold the office of the President.
OK, here’s the rub;
1. What are the requirements for POTUS? Why are they what they are?
2. Who was obligated to ensure only valid Presidential candidates were put before the voting citizenry?
3. Here’s the zinger, what do you do after an election and prior to inauguration to ensure a candidate has met the requirements?
My take-
1. Natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of 14 years. I support the framers’ contention “natural” born meaning born on US territory to parents (plural) of American citizenship. The contention ensures against ANY questions regarding foreign loyalties. “Natural” is founder language specifically addressing unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to this Nation.
Something only I only recently understood is WHY the framers, the congress, and every President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now evident to me- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
2. Candidate is obligated upon demand to provide proof of eligibility to political national committee and State Election Officers (those responsible for setting the ballot).
3. Candidate that is seeking office (and taxpayer salary) is obligated to prove without doubt his/her eligibility to assume office (especially in cases of where questions indicate otherwise), the US congress can refuse to accept the votes from the electoral college until such undeniable proof is given, and lastly, the courts can compel relevant parties to submit to said obligations or duties.
As far as the birth certificate questions, natural born, and whatever else is bugging you about Mr. Obama’s candidacy…it’s the courts or nothing (ambiguity).
Additional thoughts from a dumb active duty American Soldier-
1. We live in a constitutional republic. Period. Republics derive their validity based on the rule of law. Folks who cry “will of the people” and pick and choose which rules are to be obeyed or ignored are treading a path of potential tyranny (at the very least an illegitimate government). Ask yourself if you want President Bush to hold a third term contrary to the 22nd Amendment.
2. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate issue is a clever ploy to obfuscate the true measure of his eligibility to be President. He is/was a constitutional lawyer; he’s stated that he is a “native” born American with dual citizenship; There should be no doubt he understood ambiguity existed as to his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President regarding Article II. The obligation is upon those that SEEK public office to prove eligibility beyond a shadow of a doubt (to self and constituency). To swear an oath to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution to hold that office with knowing that ambiguity existed is criminal and disingenuous.
If you are unaware, the Constitution refers to only two kinds of Americans: citizens and natural born citizens. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Only ONCE is it mentioned the term “natural born citizen” in the entirety of the United States Constitution…in reference to the requirement for holding the Office of President (and Vice-President).
3. Who should care that candidates meet eligibility requirements to hold office? Why is it important that requirements are created, expected, and complied? What are the consequences in this situation for malfeasance / misfeasance regarding the highest guiding document of our Nation? What would our founding fathers say about this current situation? What are we doing for the future of our Nation when we shirk the responsibilities of the present? Can an ineligible candidate that has assumed office give a “lawful order” to the United States Armed Forces?
Answers to questions I and others have asked-
Something I only recently understood (remember I’m a dumb Soldier) is WHY the framers, the courts, the congress, and EVERY President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now clear to me why- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
Mr. Obama is the first candidate EVER to have the presumption to run for office with ADMITTED dual citizenship. EVER. Let that sink in…the Founding Fathers would have crapped themselves.
If you wonder what a naturalized citizen means…to become a citizen through oath of ALLEGIANCE and intent for residency in the United States. A (native born) citizen is not required to swear an oath and derives their citizenship through place of birth or citizenship of parent(s).