IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY Tracy A. Fair;Mary C. Miltenberger

Plaintiffs, v. Robert L. Walker,Chairman of the MarylandState Board of Elections;Linda H. Lamone, Case Number: 06-C-12-060692State Administrator of Elections;John P. McDonough,Maryland Secretary of State;Jared DeMarinis,Director of the Candidacy and CampaignFinance Division, Maryland StateBoard of Elections;

Defendants,

__________________________________________________

AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF　　

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Tracy A. Fair (Pro Se) and Mary C. Miltenberger (Pro Se) bring this

Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the above

Defendants and charge them with malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty and in

violation of their constitutional oath.

1

When I first filed my complaint, I originally charged Barack Obama, for signing

a form swearing he was eligible, when he wasn’t. But after extensive research and

finding out that the Board of Elections no longer requires the certificate of candidacy

form, where candidates swear under oath that they are eligible, we feel the blame falls on

those who were required to follow the law, when certifying a candidate to make sure he

is eligible to be on the ballot. What these officials did, resulted in the Board having no

signature on file, of Mr. Obama swearing that he is qualified, leaving no recourse against

Mr. Obama.

The actions taken to circumvent the sworn oath of Obama’s qualifications,

combined with accepting a certificate of nomination in 2008 that omitted the constitution

phrase, along with Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation on Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate,

only shows that there is something seriously wrong here. There are several checks to

avoid an ineligible candidate getting on the ballot and every last defendant, went around

that check.

The first check was Obama, who studied constitutional law and knew he was not

eligible to run. Second, Nancy Pelosi in 2008, knew he wasn’t allowed to run, which is

why she removed the constitutional clause from the certificate of nomination (exhibit #1).

The Board has a check to certify the candidate by federal and state laws as well, which

they also failed to do. Then the Secretary of State took an oath to the Constitution, which

he did not abide by either, thereby illegally allowing Obama on the ballot. As Maryland

and federal law requires, candidates for President must be natural born citizens and

regardless of what laws the Board claims they follow, no law negates the United States

2

Constitution and all defendants took an oath to uphold that Constitution and laws thereof.

From the Board of Election’s own website under Qualifications for filing

Candidacy, the chart clearly states that the President and Vice President must be natural

born citizens as opposed to all other offices, which only need to be citizens (exhibit #2).

We have discussed this issue many times with the State Board of Elections and

the Secretary of State’s Office and were told the only law they follow is EL 8-502, which

allows the Secretary of State to certify an individual to be on the ballot, solely because

he’s been advocated in the media, while disregarding all other federal and state laws on

Presidential eligibility.

There are many other federal and state laws that require an individual to be

qualified for the office they seek and the defendants are not allowed to pick and choose

the laws they wish to follow, in order to change the outcome of elections. Moreover,

there is monumental amounts of “media” that does not advocate Obama, including the

Kenyan Parliament’s recorded minutes, stating Obama is not a native American (exhibit

#3) and Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation of Obama birth certificate, which shows it to be a

forgery (exhibit #4). In filing this complaint we respectfully allege that:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. The acts of these individuals in concert, of willfully neglecting their official

duties and suspending laws which are detriment to the security of this nation, has

removed all checks on determining the legitimacy of the candidates and has resulted in a

candidate for President of the United States, on the Democratic ticket in 2008 and 2012,

who is not required to certify under oath that he is a natural born citizen and legitimately

3

meets the requirements under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Law.

2. That each and every defendant listed above has taken an oath to uphold the

Constitution and and must be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof, which

allowed this to happen. We feel they must be censured and removed, for malfeasance in

office, dereliction of duty and for violating their oath to uphold the US and Maryland

Constitutions.

3. We feel the evidence proves beyond doubt that the citizens of Maryland have

been deceived by the Maryland legislators into thinking that the U.S. Constitution is

being upheld, when they purposely created a law to avoid their oaths of office and allow

an impostor to be elected as U.S. President. This is the only time in the history of the

United States, that Maryland has changed its election law to allow for this subversion

of both the Constitution and Maryland law. However, even though Maryland laws

have been changed to circumvent the requirement for presidential candidates to file a

certificate of candidacy, the defendants must still adhere to all federal and state laws on

presidential eligibility and any laws that are made contrary are notwithstanding under

Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution.

4. Overwhelming evidence proves that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen

and was fraudulently allowed to be placed on the ballot by the defendants, even though

he is not eligible under federal and state laws.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs, Tracy Fair of 19 W. Obrecht Rd., Sykesville, MD. 21784, 443-277-1708

and Mary Coffey Miltenberger of 14701 Smouse's Mill Rd., NE Cumberland. Md. 21502,

4

301-724-9110.

Defendant, Chairman of the Maryland Board of Elections, Robert L. Walker of

151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, took an oath to uphold the

United States Constitution. Under Election Law Article, Title 2-102, the Board’s duties

include managing and supervising 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. His duties under EL 2-101 also include conforming to the restrictions

specified under § 2-301, which states the individual may not use their official authority

for the purpose of influencing or affecting the result of an election. It is also the Boards

job to appoint a State Administrator.

Defendant, Maryland State Administrator of Elections, Linda H. Lamone of 151

West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, took an oath to uphold the United

States Constitution. Linda has been the State Administrator for over 15 years, which

could account for the relaxed rules at the Board of Elections. The State Administrator’s

duties under EL 2-103 include performing all duties and exercise all powers that are

assigned by law to the State Administrator or delegated by the State Board, including

certifying candidates to be on the ballot for State elections.

Defendant, Maryland Secretary of State, John P. McDonough of 16 Francis

Street, Annapolis, MD 21401, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. The

Secretary of State’s duties, during the Primary election, according to EL 8-502, include

certifying presidential candidates, only by their being generally advocated or recognized

in the news media and totally disregarding all other federal and state laws in relation to

5

presidential eligibility.

Defendant, Director of the Candidacy and Campaign Finance Division of the

Maryland State Board of Elections, Jared DeMarinis, took an oath to uphold the United

States Constitution. According to the Board of Elections, I was told that Jared was in

charge of certificates of candidacy and was directed to him every time I called. Jared told

me several times on the phone that he follows one law when certifying presidential

candidates and that he no longer requires them to file a certificate of candidacy. He

claims he no longer needs the form where a candidate signs under oath, that they meet

the requirement for that office. I asked Jared to put that in writing, but he refused. He did

however write me a letter (exhibit #5), saying the Board of Elections follows all laws,

which is obviously not true.

JURISDICTION

TITLE 9 - VOTING

Subtitle 2 - Ballots

After confirming with the Board of Elections of when they would be certifying

candidates, I made sure to file within the 3 day time period, therefore this Court has

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Maryland Election Law 9-20 and 12-202 and

according to the case below, must be expressed expeditiously.

Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1031

We also recognize that some federal courts have adopted a per se rule with respect to the

application of laches to claims arising out of elections, stating that “any claim against a

state electoral procedure must be expressed expeditiously.”

6

VENUE

According to Maryland State Government Code 10-125, any person can seek declaratory

judgment on the validity of any regulation in the circuit court for the county where the

petitioner resides.

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article II, 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 VI

Clause 2

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

notwithstanding.

Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several

State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and

of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

7

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public

Trust under the United States.

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.

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.

FEDERAL STATUTES

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Clause 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America

in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to

any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the

United States;

8

MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

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 3

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited

by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.

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.

9

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

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.

10

MARYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 1

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.

Section 11 - Refusal to take oath; violation of oath

Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, who shall refuse,

or neglect, to take the oath, or affirmation of office, provided for in the ninth section of

this Article, shall be considered as having refused to accept the said office; and a new

election, or appointment, shall be made, as in case of refusal to accept, or resignation of

an office; and any person 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.

MARYLAND STATUTES

MARYLAND ELECTION LAW ARTICLE

TITLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE 1. DEFINITIONS

1-101. Definitions

(L) Candidate. --

(1) "Candidate" means an individual who files a certificate of candidacy for a public or

party office.

11

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;

(7) the prevention of fraud and corruption is diligently pursued; and

(8) any offenses that occur are prosecuted.

TITLE 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE AND LOCAL BOARDS

Subtitle 1. STATE BOARD

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.

2-103. STATE ADMINISTRATOR

(b) Specific powers and duties. -- The State Administrator shall:

(5) perform all duties and exercise all powers that are assigned by law to the State

Administrator or delegated by the State Board;

(8) be the chief State election official.

(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.

12

Subtitle 3. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE

2-301. Bar to political activities

(a) Applicability. -- This section applies to:

(1) a member of the State Board;

(3) the State Administrator;

(4) an employee of the State Board or of a local board, including the election director of

a board;

(6) an election judge.

(b) In general. --

(1) An individual subject to this section may not, while holding the position:

(ii) use the individual's official authority for the purpose of influencing or affecting

the result of an election;

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.

13

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.

Subtitle 3. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

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;

5-304. Manner of filing.

(c) Content. — On the certificate of candidacy form prescribed by the State Board, the

candidate shall specify:

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.

Subtitle 6. QUALIFICATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT

5-601. Candidates qualifying.

The name of a candidate shall remain on the ballot and be submitted to the voters at a

14

primary election if:

(1) the candidate has filed a certificate of candidacy in accordance with the requirements

of § 5-301 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:

(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;

(2) the candidate has qualified to have the candidate’s name submitted to the voters in a

presidential primary election under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article.

Subtitle 7. NOMINATION

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

(a) In general. — A certificate of nomination that entitles a candidate for public office to

have the candidate’s 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.

TITLE 8. ELECTIONS

Subtitle 2. PRIMARY ELECTIONS

8-203. Certification of candidates.

(a) In general. — Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in accordance

with Title 9, Subtitle 2 of this article, the State Board shall certify to the local board of a

county the names of candidates on the primary election ballots in that county.

15

Subtitle 5. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

8-502. Candidates for President -- Primary election

(a) Applicability. -- This section applies to the placement on the ballot in the primary

election of the names of individuals who are candidates for nomination by principal

political parties to the office of President of the United States.

(b) Procedure. -- An individual who desires to run in the primary election may be placed

on the ballot only:

(1) by direction of the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (c) of this

section; or

(2) by filing, in accordance with subsection (d) of this section, a petition containing the

signatures of at least 400 registered voters from each congressional district in the State.

(c) Selection by Secretary of State. --

(1) The Secretary of State shall certify to the State Board the names of candidates for

nomination by a principal political party during the period beginning 90 days before the

primary election and ending 80 days before the 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.

16

(d) Petition process. -- A candidate who seeks to be placed on the ballot by the petition

process specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section shall file the petition, in the form

prescribed by the State Board, on the Wednesday that is 83 days before the day of the

election.

(e) Democratic primary -- Preference for "uncommitted". -- The State Board shall

establish a procedure for the Democratic presidential primary through which votes may

be cast as uncommitted to any presidential candidate.

(f) Certification of candidates. -- The names of the candidates for President qualifying

under this section shall be certified to the local boards by the State Board and shall be

printed on all ballots used for the primary election.

TITLE 9. VOTING

Subtitle 2. BALLOTS

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 qualified.

TITLE 12. CONTESTED ELECTIONS

Subtitle 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTIONS

12-204. Judgment.

(a) In general. — The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of

17

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

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.

TITLE 16. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Subtitle 3. CONDUCT OF ELECTION OFFICIALS

16-301. Neglect of duties; corrupt or fraudulent acts

18

(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.

Subtitle 10. GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS

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.

MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTION’S BY-LAWS

ARTICLE 4 - RULES OF CONDUCT

Section 4.2 - POLITICAL ACTIVITY

A. Statutory requirements

19

The members shall abide by the restrictions to political activities provided under § 2-301

of the Election Law Article.

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.

ARTICLE 5 – RULES 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.

Section 5.2 – THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF

A. The administrator shall carry out all duties assigned to him or her under the Election

Law Article, regulations, policies and procedures established by the board, and duties

assigned or delegated by the board.

B. The administrator, as the State’s Chief Election Official, is responsible for all aspects

of managing elections in Maryland including the day-to-day operation of the State office,

implementing State election laws and regulations, and serving as a subject matter expert

for the Board, the General Assembly, and other stakeholders.

20

Section 5.4 – DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

The Board delegates the duties designated in Duties of the State Board and State

Administrator to the administrator.

SUPREME COURT CASES - ELECTIONS

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211 (1992)

The court calls it a "fundamental right" to "cast a ballot in an election free from the taint

of intimidation and fraud"

Wesberry v. Sanders - 376 U.S. 1 (1964)

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 abridges this right.

SUPREME COURT CASES - NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite

'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.'

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must

be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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

21

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.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Justice Gray cites Chief Justice Taney:

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 to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized

in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of

22

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 the naturalization acts,

or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations

as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on

that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as

retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which

they reside. “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more

satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens

are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject

to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are

those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist

and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow

the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

The Nereide - 13 U.S. 388 (1815) Chief Justice Marshall

“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious

and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the

23

discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress

has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be

applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. 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.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino

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

24

U. S. 434 (1913).

Natural Born Citizen in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton’s draft for the Constitution suggests in Article

IX, Section 1 that: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United

States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of

the United States." (Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington

(president of the Constitutional Convention): "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." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance

of allegiance from birth.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's

Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads:

"I thank you for the hints contained in your letter" (Records of the Federal Convention of

1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] pae 76.)

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington

wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their

drafts. (Madison’s notes of the Convention - September 4th, 1787) .The proposal passed

unanimously without debate.

25

Natural Born Citizen in the Congressional Debates

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was an act to end slavery in the U.S. and make the freed

slaves, citizens. The discussion of these debates actually having been quoted by Justice

Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649:

"During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights

bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to

amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: 'All persons born in the United States,

and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United

States, without distinction of color.' Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked 'whether it

will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this

country?' Mr. Trumbull answered, 'Undoubtedly;' (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress,

1st Session p. 498, 573, 57)

When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Representative John Bingham

of Ohio, father of the future 14th amendment, confirms the understanding and

construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on

civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s

amendment to the bill:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of

what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction

of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the

language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" (1866 Congressional Globe,

House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)

26

Again, back in 1862, Representative John Bingham:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance

with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States;

all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other

sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement

touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

(Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional

and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until

Senator Jacob Howard's amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced.

In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of

the Citizenship clause) states:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law

of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of

the United States." (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

The law he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just

recently passed and states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not

subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be

citizens of the United States;" Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27.

27

Obama’s father was subject to a foreign power and was a British subject (exhibit

6). He was governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born,

which made Obama a British Subject at birth and it is impossible to become a natural

born citizen, if you are not born as one.

Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in the

14th amendment, which is why the law/amendment went astray. The Congressional

records of the 14th amendment debates, give us Trumbull’s exact definition of the intent

of his Citizenship Clause amendment to the bill. Who would know the intent of the

Citizenship Clause better than anyone, than the person who wrote the clause himself?

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth

Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'

What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody

else. That is what it means." (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session,

pg 2893)

Trumbull’s words prove without a doubt that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power. Further

supporting my claims is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of

America which states:

"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

28

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;” 8 USC § 1448 - Oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Now why would immigrants not born here and becoming citizens, be required to

renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, but people born here to immigrants

are not held to that same allegiance requirement? That just makes no sense. Full

allegiance is required for citizenship and the Naturalization Oath and Civil Rights Act

prove that the Founders did not recognize dual citizenship and required full allegiance.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

After several years of thorough research of Congressional records, we believe

our facts that define a natural born citizen, as by the exact people who authored the laws

themselves, to be someone born to two citizen parents, which provides the full allegiance

for citizenship. Because the defendants have no clear intent of the law on presidential

requirements or don’t understand a law, in no way gives them the right to suspend those

laws. When power corrupts and people feel they are above the law and don’t need to

follow them, it puts our country in grave danger and abridges the rights of the people.

I would first like to explain why we have come to court without representation.

We are both aware that it is not a smart thing to do, to be your own attorney, however

we’ve called practically every attorney in Maryland and many outside of Maryland,

we called every lawyer referral service in Maryland we could find and we called every

County Bar Association in the State, in which the woman at the Carroll County Bar

29

Association, in my own county, after explaining my case, said “You are a nutcase and

need to check yourself into a mental institution”, which I find extremely inappropriate,

when they have no clue of the facts in this case.

We almost thought of walking away from this case because it is much too hard to

fight government, much less try and do it without an attorney, but when there is clear and

convincing evidence, someone must stand up to the corruption and try to end it. There

must be someone of authority, that will look at the facts and see that we are not “crazy”

and that we are just trying to defend our Constitution and save our Country.

We believe the facts show that the term Natural Born Citizen is not based upon

English Common Law, but rather on Vattel’s definition written in his legal treatise of

1758 titled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. An interesting illustration

is offered by some early statistics concerning courts: within 31 years, from 1789-1820

Grotius was cited in pleadings 16 times, Pufendorf 9 times; Bynkershoek 25 times; Vattel

92times. The courts themselves cited Vattel over 60 times. (Traditional doctrine on

intervention in the law of nations. pg. 252.)

That the framers of the Constitution were influenced by the Law of Nations

cannot be disputed. It has always been considered, by the Supreme Court, as relevant to

international legal disputes in American tribunals.

Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the

Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their

discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall,

was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian

30

reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the

First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F.

Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of

Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American

situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key

collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing

him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.

In a letter from Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas, dated Dec.19, 1775, Franklin

states:

“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, has been

continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.” Ben Franklin to

Charles William Frederic Dumas - December 9, 1775. Letters of Delegates to Congress:

Volume 2 September 1775 - December 1775, page 466.

In reading the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it is declared

that the Founders broke ties with British Law and assumed Natural Law, and Vattel’s

book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, was what the Founder’s used

when writing the Constitution, as was just confirmed by Benjamin Franklin’s letter to

Charles Dumas.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve

the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the

31

powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of

Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that

they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” The Declaration of

Independence July 4, 1776.

Vattel’s treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains

the exact same passage as the 1775 edition given to Franklin by Dumas. “The citizens are

the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its

authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,

are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added.) “The Law

of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg.

101.(App. Pg. 161.)

Book 1, Chapter XIX. section 212 goes on to read:

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the

citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all

their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its

own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering

into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country

of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by

their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion,

they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father

32

who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth,

and not his country.”

In late 1779, Governor Thomas Jefferson, a College alumnus and member of its

Board of Visitors, guided the creation of a law school at the College. In contrast to the

practice of the day that aspiring lawyers serve as apprentices to members of the bar,

Jefferson felt that legal education would best be accomplished in a university setting

where students would study law amid the liberal arts.

On December 4, 1779, the College’s Board of Visitors appointed George Wythe,

in whose office Jefferson had apprenticed, as the College’s and nation’s first professor of

law. Wythe was Jefferson’s beloved mentor and an enormously distinguished figure of

the era. A member of the Second Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of

Independence, Wythe had begun his career in public service as a member and later clerk

in the Virginia House of Burgesses. A distinguished lawyer and legal scholar, he would

later serve on the Virginia bench and, as a member of the Constitutional Convention,

became one of the architects of the federal Constitution, championing its ratification in

his home state.

Wythe’s students at William & Mary attended lectures twice a week where they

might discuss the common law, American constitutional law, or the work of political

theorists or classical authors. Wythe honed students’ advocacy skills through moot court

arguments and also convened mock legislatures where students gained rich experience

writing, debating, and revising legislation, taking as their model legislation pending

before the General Assembly.

33

Among those first students was John Marshall, who went on to become the

fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and whose 34-year tenure, left a profound

mark on the high court and the country. Statues of Wythe & Marshall stand at the Law

School’s entrance commemorating the founding of the nation’s first law school at

William & Mary.

Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson

“On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired

from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a

self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change

in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two

professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law

& Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and

the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations,

& the Fine Arts to the duties of the Moral professor, and Natural history to those of the

professor of Mathematics and Natural philosophy” Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson,

1743-1790: By Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, George Haven Putnam.

Natural Born Presidents

Every President Other Than Chester Arthur Was Born In The U.S. Of Citizen

Parents, Or Was Eligible Under The Grandfather Clause In Article 2, Section 1. Chester

Arthur's father, William, did not naturalize until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was

born. (Naturalization certificate for William Arthur, 1843; Library of Congress, Chester

Arthur Papers.) (App. Pg. 163.) Therefore, Chester Arthur was, at birth, a British subject.

34

On Nov 3, 1884, President Arthur's Fourth Annual Message to Congress included the

following cryptic statement:

"An uniform rule of naturalization such as the Constitution contemplates should,among

other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to

a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their

intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization. A just and

uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting

its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization

with foreign countries."

President Chester Arthur, Fourth Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1894., pg.

8. (App. Pg. 173. ) The statement is rich with context. President Arthur indicated that

persons born in the U.S., subject to a foreign power, required naturalization. Additionally,

he calls for the status of such persons to be clarified. Which class of persons subject to

a foreign power does he refer to? Certainly not ambassadors and ministers, since their

status has always been clear. And only four weeks earlier, in Nov. 1884, the status of

Indians was declared in Elk v. Wilkins, so he's not making reference to them. That leaves

the third class of persons discussed on page 73 of The Slaughter-House Cases, "citizens

or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".

Since Justice Gray cited to that exact page as precedent, just four weeks earlier,

in the Supreme Court's opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, President Arthur, having been born to

an alien father, had good reason to be alarmed. Justice Gray, at that time (Nov. 1884),

certainly appeared to have adopted the opinion stated in the Slaughter-House Cases, that

35

children of aliens, born in the country, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States:

"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 . . . and to put it beyond doubt that all persons . . 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. The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall.

36, 73;”

Note that Justice Gray cited to pg. 73 of The Slaughter-House Cases, and the

statement bears repeating:

"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." The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73(1872).

Furthermore, Justice Gray, at this point in time, treated the 14th Amendment’s

citizenship clause requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as synonymous

with “owing no allegiance to any alien power”. Chester Arthur’s Message makes clear he

believed that persons born to aliens in the U.S. required naturalization. And since those

who require naturalization are not natural-born, Chester Arthur’s statement appears to be

a veiled admission that he was not eligible to be President.

HISTORY

Mr. Obama’s grade school papers (exhibit #7), shown on CBS’s Inside Edition,

list his name as Barry Soetoro, his nationality as Indonesian and his religion as islam.

36

This confirms that, as a child, Mr. Obama was adopted by his step father Lolo Soetoro, as

Obama’s step sister, Maya Soetoro has claimed. Barack Obama: School Life in Indonesia

- Tuesday, 05/06/08: http://www.insideedition.com/videos/132/barack-obama-school-life-

in-indonesia.aspx

According to the Attorney’s Registration and Disciplinary Commission of

the Supreme Court of Illinois (ARDC), when Mr. Obama filled out his Illinois Bar

Application on December 17, 1991, he failed to list his full former name of Barry Soetoro

(exhibit #8). There is no record of Mr. Soetoro changing his name back to Mr. Obama

and this in itself, deserves investigating.

The Kenyan Parliament is even on record in the Kenyan Hansard minutes, stating

that Mr. Obama is a “Son of the soil of that country” and that he is “not even a native

American”. Wouldn’t it be extremely easy for our government to contact the Kenyan

Parliament and ask them why they are claiming this? Why is it so hard for someone to

believe that the Kenyan might just be telling the truth? There’s even a birth certificate

from Nairobi that says Obama was born at the King George VI Hospital (exhibit 9),

which just so happened to become the World’s Central location for AIDS research and

was given millions and millions of dollars, under the Obama administration, I’d like to

know how and why this hospital was chosen and can’t believe it was just a coincidence!

All other facts, combined with Arizona’s Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation, which is

the only official police investigation in the whole country investigating the forged birth

certificate, without a doubt shows that the Obama’s eligibility issue, definitely needs

more investigating and any vote for him, should be blocked until this issue is resolved.

37

CONCLUSION - RELIEF SOUGHT

We ask the honorable court to review our petition under Election Law Title 12

Subtitle 2-203 Procedure: 1, The proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury

and as expeditiously as the circumstances require before the April 3, 2012 primary.

We respectfully request the following judgement:

1. Law 8-502 be invalidated, so not to infringe upon the rights of the people.

2. Law 5-302 be followed, to restore faith and the rule of law in our election system.

3. That all candidates be required to sign under oath that they fill the requirements.

4. The members of the General Assembly that voted for this 8-502 law be censured and

removed from office and prevented from running for office in the future, because they

have failed to follow the U.S.Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, Article 1 Sec 7 and

their own oath of office. Article 1 Sec 9.

5. A new election be held in November 2012 to elect new members of the General

Assembly, the Governor and Attorney General.

6. The Secretary of State be instructed to follow 5-302 starting with this election.

For the reasons stated above, we feel we have proven that there is no other choice,

but to remove Mr. Obama from all Maryland ballots forthcoming, because he does

not meet the requirements of a Natural Born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 of the

Constitution. Leaving Mr. Obama’s name on the ballot is not only unconstitutional, but

also violates all American’s 14th amendment rights, by not enforcing a law that abridges

38

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, not to mention our right to

fair elections by qualified candidates, that are free of fraud. Any Maryland law that is

contrary to the Constitution is notwithstanding according to the Constitution itself.

If this constitutional error is not corrected and is allowed to stand, it will set

precedent that all one needs, is to be born here, to run for the office of President, which

is 100% contrary to the Founder’s intent. If this unconstitutional change to the definition

of Natural Born Citizen is allowed to persist, it won’t be long until a person born to

foreigners, with full allegiance to another country, can become president of the United

States, completely voiding the U.S. Constitution. That will be the end of America, if this

unconstitutional President doesn’t ruin it first.

VERIFICATION

We solemnly affirm under penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing

Complaint are true to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.

___________________________

Tracy A. Fair

___________________________

Mary C. Miltenberger

39

EXHIBITS

1. Obama’s 2008 certification of nomination that omitted the Constitutional clause.

2. Chart from the State Board of Elections website stating the President and Vice

President must be Natural Born Citizens.

3. Kenyan Hansard minutes stating Obama in nat a native American.

4. Sheriff Arpaio’s complete investigation on Obama’s birth certificate.

5. Letter signed by Jared DeMarinis of the Board of Elections stating that the Board

follows all relevant laws.

6. Government document proving Obama Sr.’s country of birth was Kenyan and that his

country of citizenship was Africa.

7. Copy of Obama’s Indonesia elementary school records showing his name as Barry

Soetoro and his nationality as Indonesian.

8. Copy of Obama’s Illinois bar application showing he omitted his other former names.

9. Possibly Obama’s real birth certificate from Nairobi, which needs validating.

40