Obama Citizenship

Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports

By Phil

As reported by DecaLogosIntl.org:

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):

Washington?s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name.   Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party.  Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties.  Obama has never claimed an interest in this action.  Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election.  The outcome of Washington?s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus.  The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office!  We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a ?natural born citizen? of the United States at the time of the election.  He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.  

WorldNetDaily has also picked up on this story (in part, below):

In Washington state’s Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

“These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, ‘You handle the elections, it’s your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],’” Stephen Pidgeon told WND, “and the secretaries of state have said, ‘No, it’s not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.’ But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

“Here, we have standing by means of statute,” Pidgeon continued. “This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office.”

Further, Pidgeon explained, “In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it’s very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

“He doesn’t think he does; we think he does. That’s really the issue before the court,” Pidgeon said.

REPLY - ?The Secretary Of State Is Confused?

December 30, 2008

Washington?s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name.   Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama.

The Secretary of State?s claim that ?Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born on August 4, 1961? is patently false.  Nothing in its original form has been produced publicly. The document provided by Obama says on the bottom border that ?any alteration invalidates this certificate.?  The copy is altered, its CERTIFICATE NUMBER having been blotted out with a dark, black line. The only document Sen. Obama has yet to produce to demonstrate his native birth in the United States is wholly deficient to do so.

The Secretary has a duty to determine eligibility.  Article VI of the United States Constitution requires all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 the Washington State Constitution makes the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land.  The Secretary of State is ?the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.?  RCW 29A.04.230, and he is ?required by law? to . . . coordinate those state election activities with federal law.  Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that ?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.?

Our position is not moot.  Amendment 20, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, states that ?if  a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [bold added], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.?

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party.  Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties.  Obama has never claimed an interest in this action.  Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election.  The outcome of Washington?s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus.  The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office!  We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a ?natural born citizen? of the United States at the time of the election.  He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

The Secretary is without any evidence upon which he can reasonably rely to shirk his constitutional duty.  The Secretary of State has relied upon four pieces of ?evidence? he believes to be sufficient to vitiate his constitutional duty to establish the eligibility of Senator Obama: 1) the Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee; 2) the digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth posted by FactCheck.org; 3) FacCheck.org?s certification that that the Certification was genuine; and 4) the statement by State of Hawaii, Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino.

The Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee says nothing more than that Senator Obama was ?duly nominated.?  There is no certification by the DNC that the candidate was eligible or constitutionally qualified to hold office.

FactCheck.org?s certification is meaningless, because the document they ?certify? as genuine is deficient on its face as a matter of law.  The digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth does not establish that Senator Obama was born in the United States, because of Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii.

Finally, the statement by Dr. Fukino is that she has ?personally seen and verified that the Hawai?i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama?s original birth certificate on record in accordance with policies and procedures.?  She does not tell us that the document they have is a Hawaiian birth certificate; only that there is a birth certificate on file in Hawaii.

PLAINTIFFS? REPLY
Cause No, 8-2-473-8

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on December 30, 2008 (boomark / email).