1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pamela Barnett, pro se, Petitioner of the Ad Hoc California registered voters with service at 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Telephone: 530-845-5186

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett, Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, Gary Wilmott Petitioners, v. Debra Bowen individually and officially as The California Secretary of State at 1500 11th Street, 5th 18 Floor Sacramento, CA, 95814; Barack Hussein Obama II; OBAMA FOR AMERICA (CALIFORNIA) at NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HQ 3225 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703; John and Jane Does and XYZ Entities. Respondents. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.34-2012-80001048

FIRST AMENDED PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING Date: Time: Dept: Judge: TBD TBD 31 Hon. Michael P. Kenny

Action Filed: January 6, 2012

Petitioners submit Amended Petition in response to new highly credible evidence that will dramatically affect this petition. It is of great public interest to ensure that this court allows discovery to ensure that our public servants at the highest levels are held accountable in regard to potential election fraud that is now currently underway in the 2012 California presidential election cycle. Also, an important Appeals court ruling on CEC 13314 was issued March 1 which affects this petition. Petitioner adds the following arguments and information to writ filed January 6, 2011 in this First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising. Parties and jurisdiction remain the same.

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 1 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

On September 31, 2011, the CA SOS, Deborah Bowen issued instructions (see Exhibit 1) also available at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/pdf/dempresident-2012.pdf to any prospective candidate(s) for the Office of POTUS from the Democratic party in preparation for the June 5, 2012 Democratic Primary. And that the CA SOS Instructions at Part 1 Qualification mandated that any candidate for POTUS be eligible for that office according to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and specifically meets the quote: I. QUALIFICATIONS Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, 1 cl. 5
1.

That according to the California State Constitution at Article 20 the Oath of office

taken (1) as a duly elected public officer, in which there is a implicit duty on the part of the

ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS [ Required Oath of Office ]

[ Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 ] SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. (emphasis added) "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: (emphasis added) (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ____________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." (emphasis added) And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising Page 2 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Secretary of State to determine whether President Obama or any other presidential candidate meets the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution; and
2.

As far as Petitioner can surmise by reading the code and instructions of the State

Legislature and Congress as well as the CA SOS Notice provided to each candidate, shown as Exhibit 1 for the Democrats, is that only Respondent Bowen has the duty as CA SOS under CEC 6041(2) to select the democratic party candidates for the party in the primary as there appears there is no express authority delegated by the CA State Legislature to the Democratic Party per se or any other party for that matter; so it's all of the CA SOS responsibility to create and certify the "the list" of candidates.
3.

Petitioner contends that some statutory duties of the California secretary of state are

in conflict with regards to verifying eligibility of national presidential candidates as the California Constitution mandates that the Secretary of State uphold her duties which is overseen by the Legislators and Executive to enforce with impeachment.
4.

The California Constitution - Article II states:

SECTION 5. The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy. (emphasis added) 5. To be a recognized candidate the U.S. Constitution, Art II mandates that:
"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. CAEC 6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. Between the 150th day and the 68th day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election. (emphasis added)
2

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 3 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6.

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. It is a constitutional mandated duty for the Secretary of State to make a

determination to place on the ballot only recognized candidates.

7.

Petitioner contends that RESPONDENT OBAMA despite the notice provided to

Respondent Obama and his agents to comply with California Election Code and the US Constitution as shown as Exhibit 1, Respondent Obama nevertheless admits he is merely on the honor system of self checking his eligibility states in the Demurrer MOL that quote: either President Obama nor his campaign committee have any legal obligation to provide proof of the President's qualifications as a "natural born citizen" to the Secretary of State in order to establish his eligibility to appear on the ballot as a presidential candidate, much less for him to be able to engage in fundraising activities in California. Candidate Obama fails to state which of the duties that the Secretary of State fails to apply to him as would apply to any other candidate in the state running for office for ballot access per the California Elections Code and the U.S. Constitution. Candidate Obama accused of fraud contends there is no check required. Petitioner and American Independent Candidate Ed Noonan stands ready to prove he was born in the United States to two American citizen parents. In a matter of fair competition Candidate Obama and all other Presidential candidates that seek California ballot access should also prove that he is a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
8.

That according to California Law that also dictates the duties the Secretary of State,

including the duty as chief elections officer of California, to ensure election laws are followed (California Government Code [hereinafter referred to as CGC] 12172.5), the duty to investigate election fraud (CGC 12172.5), and the duty to advise candidates and local elections officials on the qualifications and requirements for running for office.

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 4 of 21

12172.5. The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and shall administer the provisions of the Elections Code. 2 i. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficiently conducted and that state election laws are enforced. The Secretary of State may require 3 elections officers to make reports concerning elections in their jurisdictions. ii. If, at any time, the Secretary of State concludes that state election laws 4 are not being enforced, the Secretary of State shall call the violation to the 5 attention of the district attorney of the county or to the Attorney General. In these instances, the Secretary of State may assist the county elections officer in 6 discharging his or her duties. iii. In order to determine whether an elections law violation has occurred the 7 Secretary of State may examine voted, unvoted, spoiled and canceled ballots, vote-counting computer programs, vote by mail ballot envelopes and 8 applications, and supplies referred to in Section 14432 of the Elections Code. The Secretary of State may also examine any other records of elections officials as he 9 or she finds necessary in making his or her determination, subject to the 10 restrictions set forth in Section 6253.5. iv. The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to assure the uniform 11 application and administration of state election laws. (emphasis added)
1 a. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9.

Petitioner contends that CA SOS in order to fulfill her duty to advise candidates, there

are several documents on the California Secretary of State website informing all who are seeking elected office as to the qualifications and requirements for each elected position including President of the United States.
10. The Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify the eligibility of those who are

running for the office of President of the United States in a timely manner under the requirements of CEC 6041 before the party primary; as election of Federal officers is done at the state level on a state by state basis under the plenary authority of the respective state legislature as a matter of compelling state interest - no Federal elections are Federal other than by related law.

23 11. However, regarding the general election, Petitioner contends that CEC 6901 is at odds with 24 25 26 27 28

remainder of the CA SOSs duties specified in California law before the general election, because this statute directs that the CA SOS must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties candidates. The effect of this statute is that the SOSs duty to ensure compliance with election law is suspended in favor of some other entity that has no

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 5 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 12. 6 7 8 13. 9 10 11 12

statutory duty to ensure the partys candidate meets constitutional qualifications. This law is unconstitutional under the California and U.S. Constitutions as California is mandated to control elections for presidential candidates, not political parties. Election Code Section 6901 Is An Attempt to Avoid Compliance with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The California Constitution provides; "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." (California Constitution, Article III, 1. Unlike the Petition Keyes v. Bowen brought in 2009, the Petition herein is both timely and laches does not apply; and therefore does not suffer from the same fatal defects of a case filed after the general election as was done in Keyes v. Bowen. This petition also uses CEC 13314 as standing to bring this action.

13 14. Petitioner contends that in the matter of this Petition it is filed on January 6, 2012 before the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

primary to prevent ballot access, and even were the responsibility of the CA SOS in a timeframe held in suspended animation, such is a contradiction to public officer duties under the oath of office, notwithstanding express direction from the Legislature, records that Petitioners/Petitioners standing has properly accrued as it was held by the Court in the recent Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary of State, Etc., et al, No. C065237 (Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012)[41] We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the law, including the Constitution. But as we will explain, our interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it is not the judiciary's role to judge the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does not invalidate section 13314, however, because the application of that section is not limited to challenging the qualifications and elections of candidates for membership in the Legislature. Moreover, because our interpretation resolves this case, it is unnecessary to reach any other constitutional questions, even if we might have jurisdiction to do so. AND Several California courts have held that the California Constitution deprives courts of jurisdiction to inquire into the qualifications of a candidate-nominee after a primary election. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592; Allen v. Lelande (1912) 164 Cal. 56.) But no California court has issued an opinion on whether courts have
First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising Page 6 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election. AND Courts in other states have concluded that similar provisions are not broad enough to prevent the determination by courts of whether one who seeks to be a candidate at a primary election possesses the requisite qualifications. (See Comber v. Ashe (Tenn. 1974) 514 S.W.2d 730; State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh (Mo. 1972) 483 S.W.2d 70; State ex rel. McGrath v. Erickson (Minn. 1938) 203 Minn. 390.) This Court agrees. (emphasis added)
15.

Statute (Section) 13314 fully supports Petitioners standing to have this

petition heard on the merits and gives this court the full power to grant petitioners prayers for relief even without the State having a ministerial duty unfilled as that is not stated as a requirement for relief to the Petitioners. That prior to March 1, 2012, Petitioners did properly allege inter alia that President Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" (NBC) eligible to be President of the United States (POTUS) - not because he was not born in the United States, but because his father was not a U.S. citizen and sought a writ of mandate to compel Secretary of State Bowen to "bar Respondent Obama ballot access in California along with those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming an elector slate for 'the office of POTUS for California." (Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fund Raising ("Petition"), @P18.); and further,
16.

The Petition does also seek a "permanent restraining order barring Barack

Obama or his campaign committee from fundraising in this election cycle, because Respondent Obama is not NBC eligible for the Office of POTUS, spoliates evidence and committed fraud in conspiracy to avoid detection from investigation of allegiances.
17.

That Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama by counsel in the Demurrer

has improperly concluded that Barack Obama is, of course, a natural born citizen, born in the United States to a mother who was an American citizen, and is thus fully qualified to be President under the U.S. Constitution.

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 7 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

18.

The allegation proffered by Respondent Obamas counsel in the Demurrer

directly contradicts every historical basis with related law to consider Respondent eligible for Office of POTUS when his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother who was married to a majority aged British subject ineligible for U.S. Citizenship would at best be merely considered Born a Citizen as the assumption required by the 14th Amendment; and
19.

That moreover, subsequent to the January 6, 2012 Petition filing, that on March

1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriffs Press Release (see Exhibit 2) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for Natural-born citizen with a picture of the Sheriffs webpage appended (see Exhibit 3) and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit 4) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime Quote: Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as proof positive of President Obamas authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obamas life history including:.

President Obamas Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 8 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obamas birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. 20. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 4, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see Exhibit 5) is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript (see Exhibit 6); and
21.

The Forged document shown as Exhibit 5 also now joins the previously 2008

proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 6, that at the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii to be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 7) as shown by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the socalled Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility, and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
22.

That Petitioner in her January 2, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 9 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

travel records of Respondent Obamas mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) (Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on December 10, 2010 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit 8), therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and
23.

Further, Petitioner contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the

Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obamas White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenant, and as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 8 provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence.
24.

As Further evidence, Petitioner provides additional proof that Respondent

Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit 9).

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 10 of 21

25. 1 Petitioner contends that the SOS is the only entity with the statutory authority and legal 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

obligation to vet presidential candidate qualifications and opposes RESPONDENT Obamas contention that members of the U.S. Congress are responsible in vetting Constitutional qualifications for Presidents elect. The is no law that mandates that this happens. Respondent Obama should know as the U.S. Congress never vetted his Constitutional qualifications, in fact letters from Congressmen prove that they were waiting for the judiciary to act, and a video of Clarence Thomas during Congressional testimony has the Justice stating the court is avoiding the constitutional eligibility issue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmX4F3gW_vY) Respondent Obama then stated that only the Electors of his party can decide if he is qualified. Respondent Obama quotes Robinson v. Bowen, (189 Cal. App. 4th at p.661 [supra, 567 F. Supp. 2d at p. 1147]) Therefore, any challenge to President Obamas eligibility to serve as President is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. - - not to the Secretary of State or this court. fails to address the fact that Petitioners timely filing before the primary ballot is created renders the contention inapplicable and shoulders the determination for ballot access upon the CA SOS and or the Court herein and that the Congress is not compelled by express law to require proof of eligibility other than implicit in each members oath of office like that of the CA SOS.

26.

Petitioner contends that Respondent Obamas contention of authority to

determine eligibility rests with the electoral college is in conflict with the instructions of the California State legislature that such body has no individual elector discretion other than to merely be a vessel to carry a mandatory vote and as such presupposes other powers that do not exist under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 1 (3) as the President and
3

The US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2: Method of choosing electors Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (emphasis added) First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising Page 11 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Vice President are chosen by Electors at the state level independently under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia (see Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s.

27.

In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on the ballot

to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the name of the candidate for President and Vice President, that they, the Elector, have pledged they will support. It is fully understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are the representative "stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some states, in past years, this pledge was informal, and an Elector could still legally cast their electoral ballot for whomever they chose. More recently, some state legislatures and the California State legislature (exercising their constitutional authority to do so) of 26 or so have mandated in law that Electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are pledged.
28.

Petitioner contends as such the State legislature of California has the plenary

authority and duty with which it may delegate responsibility to electors by express law, and is limited as the SCOTUS expressed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote that these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power." and that based upon information belief does not grant delegation of responsibility as such and may not grant authority to any quasi political party apart from state control and

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 12 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

oversight and may not grant such authority without an amendment to the US Constitution; however, at point the legislature does not have authority to relinquish its authority per se in regards to the legislatures election of a candidate for President / Vice President; and a such the legislature shares its authority to determine by assertion of law the responsibility to determine the eligibility to meet the qualifications of its candidate be in conformance with precedent and historical practice informing the duties of the Executive along with the Secretary of State as artificial person public officers as defined under State Public Officer law; and therefore, such express or implied instruction along with the actions of public officers as well as the implied powers supposedly granted to the electors are subject to judicial review herein.
29.

That Petitioner contends that the Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive are

without authority to write legislation redefining the term Natural Born Citizen as that would require an amendment to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as related law
(4)

, and is absent to date as shown by the Letters in Exhibit 10.

30.

Petitioner also contends that an elector who is bound by law in California (as in

26 others states) to vote only for the person elected in the advisory vote of the electors at the general election is relieved of any discretion in that the candidate must be eligible prior
4

US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5: Qualifications for office

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. By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be: natural born citizens - person born in the USA of US Citizen parents, Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162. at least thirty-five years old inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years. Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were modified by subsequent amendments: The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet all of the qualifications of being a President; and The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a President from being elected more than twice.

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 13 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to ballot access; and where the other states the electors may vote for anyone he/she chooses, as such may afford some discretion to determine eligibility. However, there is no binding requirement as a result of the advisory vote of the electors at the primary or general election as in California that has to be followed unless there is a criminal conspiracy to usurp the office of POTUS by design and even as evidence over the last 4 years remains under investigation only in Arizona by one Sheriff with authority Joe Arpaio.
31.

Petitioner in light of the evidence herewith contends that for RESPONDENT

Obama to suggest that there is somehow a waiver of the requirements for eligibility just because someone doesnt verify such, still does not change the requirements of eligibility or overcome the requirement to qualify for office, and remains a jackpot situation that automatically vacates the office on its face that then falls back to the individual committing the fraud as a criminal matter to be prosecuted in the respective state, perhaps Arizona; and that the failure to meet the qualification for office of POTUS would automatically incapacitate the attempt of usurpation as void ab initio, and thereby requiring according to Article 2 Section 6 the next person in line with eligibility to meet the qualification (5)
5

US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6: Vacancy and disability

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The wording of this clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the Vice President would become President, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an Acting President. Harrison's Vice President, John Tyler, believed that he had the right to become President. However, many Senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler ended up taking the Oath of Office and became President, setting a precedent that is followed to this day. Tyler's precedent made it possible for Vice Presidents Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson to ascend to the presidency (Gerald Ford took office after the passage of the Twenty-fifth Amendment). Tyler's precedent established that if the President's office becomes vacant due to death, resignation or disqualification, the Vice President becomes President. The Congress may provide for a line of succession beyond the Vice President. The Presidential Succession Act establishes the order as: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate and then the fifteen Cabinet Secretaries in order of that Department's establishment. First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising Page 14 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32.

That as part of the CA SOS duties to make a determination of eligibility

Respondent SOS Bowen vetted the presidential Constitutional qualifications for ballot access of Peace and Freedom candidates, as shown by copy of the campaign flyer, press release and notarized correspondence regarding denial of ballot access (see Exhibit 11). This is further evidence of arbitrary and capricious action by the CA SOS Bowen in her use of discretion to vet and single out POTUS candidates when they are honest and forth coming with their qualifications according to the CA SOS Notice shown as Exhibit 1 uses the criteria of eligibility against everyone except the democrats and Respondent Obama in particular. Respondent Bowens actions prove that the Secretary of State has the authority, obligation and ministerial duty to enforce the U.S. and California Constitutions and related election law that requires the SOS to enforce election law and prevent fraud on California elections.
33.

Petitioner contends that Respondent Obama has improperly used the false

conclusion drawn by the Indiana Court in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind . App . 2009) 91 6 N.E.2d 678 that was again used by Judge Malihi decision after the 26 January 2012 hearing in Georgia at which sworn testimony on the merits was entered on the record of any court proceeding for the first time since 2008 when the court proceeding started and were systematically blocked for various reasons including lack of standing and being untimely. Petitioner provides the learned legal analysis of Mario Apuzzo Esq., which proves Ankeny as well as the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark do not make Obama a NATURAL Born citizen as Respondent Candidate Obama contends. They only support that he is a born
The Twenty-fifth Amendment explicitly states that when the Presidency is vacant, then the Vice President becomes President. This provision applied at the time Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency. In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress, a new Vice President. Furthermore, the Amendment provides that the President, or the Vice President and Cabinet, can declare the President unable to discharge his duties, in which case the Vice President becomes Acting President. If the declaration is done by the Vice President and Cabinet, the Amendment permits the President to take control back, unless the Vice President and Cabinet challenge the President and two-thirds of both Houses vote to sustain the findings of the Vice President and Cabinet. If the declaration is done by the President, he may take control back without risk of being overridden by the Congress.

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 15 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

citizen naturalized by the 14th Amendment. Also, Ankeny did not rule that Candidate Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. In dicta, the Indiana Appeals court put words in the mouths of U.S. Supreme Court justices. This absolutely has no control over California or federal rulings. (see Exhibit 12) dissecting the Malihi Decision, appended thereafter (see Exhibit 13), that relies upon the Indiana decision.
34. That to the best of Petitioners knowledge based upon a recorded message (6) by

January 30, 2012 the CA SOS had accepted the candidacy of Barack Obama notwithstanding anything else that has been complained of by Petitioners and others and the CA SOS is acting individually as a partisan Democrat who has instructed her agents to announce the CA SOS acceptance of the Respondent Candidacy and instructed employees to make the following statement by Maxine of the CA SOS calling from:19166537635@vm.vonage.com to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) received Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:53:05 the recording of the message left Jan 30 2012 08:50:25 AM From: ST OF CA SECRET (19166537635) to: Charles Mallon (16197413139) as follows quote: "Hi Mr. Mallon, my name is Maxine and I'm returning your call to Secretary of State's office in Sacramento; and you wanted to find out what, ahh what if any action California might take regarding Georgias ahh, the state of Georgia's challenge, to Barack Obama's eligibility ahh as a presidential candidate; and ahh as far as I understand our office and the state of California has no plans absent to date to take ahh , I believe the state recognizes him as a legitimate citizen, ahh I mean a candidate where that needs to qualifications and that is based on the Democratic partys ahh acceptance of his meeting those qualifications. The Party itself is to accept the candidate prior to nominating him so ahh our office accepts what the party ahh puts forth and has no further involvement, thank you for calling our office and have a great day ,bye bye.. 35.

That the Georgia hearing that Maxine speaks of was held on January 26,

2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia who on February 3, 2102 rendered a decision shown as Exhibit 13 now on appeal, and with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w

Vonage message for Charles Mallon fron Maxine of the CA SOS office on Janaury 30, 2012:

http://www.vonage.com/vvv/index.php? message_id=MTYxOTc0MTMxMzktMTMyNzkxMzQyNS0xMzI3OTQyMjI3OTMyJGtsZ2ExJDop

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 16 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

36.

The Sworn Witness John Sampson as an expert witness, retired INS False

Document Special Investigator at the January 26, 2012 hearing when asked if he would have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said YES!
37.

That on February 28, 2012, Respondent Obama was added to the list of

Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates in California, notwithstanding his fraud spoliation and concealment activities now under investigation in Arizona (see Exhibit 14).
38.

That to the extent that CA SOS has not investigated the charges of spoliation,

concealment, false swearing, fraud that are all matters required as a duty under California Election Code the Petition does not fail to State a Cause of Action against the Secretary of State who has acted individually ultra vires in a partisan manner in violation of her oath of office and charge given to her by the state of California.
39.

There is no basis in law without sworn affidavits and substantive proof that a

candidate being submitted by the respective party that the candidate has been duly vetted and meets the criteria of the eligibility requirements under the State and Federal constitution and related law, including prior precedents of the SCOTUS that must be considered by the court, in that the Secretary of State has done the minimum due diligence to protect both the interest of the state and people who are to vote.
40.

The SOS has failed to vet the Constitutional qualifications of Candidate Obama

in 2008 and currently. Two of the Petitioners (Turner and Barnett) sued SOS Bowen in 2009 in Lightfoot v. Bowen after the election but were denied a hearing on the merits. Petitioner, based upon the foregoing evidence and law underlying the requirement for a prospective candidate, state agents are culpable for misdirection and concealment associated with the ongoing fraud to usurp the office of POTUS again, is a compelling state interest in each state of the several states and District of Columbia

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 17 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 b. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.

that conduct the respective individual elections for their respective state representative to the Federal Executive and Congress accordingly. Presidential ballot access has been relegated by Congress to be resolved in each state and the Judiciary when timely as herein notwithstanding the mirage of remedy purported to be available at the federal level is an arbitrary matter without force of law except that found in the respective state. This is illustrated by the Supreme Courts reluctance in the past, because no state until Georgia has ever had a hearing on the merits of Candidate Obamas eligibility. There are questions of Rick Santorum and Mit Romneys eligibility, but petitioners do not have the same admission against interest that Candidate Obama has made regarding his foreign birth father. In summary; That Petitioners having filed January 6, 2012 are as timely as any of the respective candidates and therefore are properly accrued for hearing on the merits and remedy fashioned based upon the authority granted to this court and that laches does not apply and relief is available. Petitioners' claims are not barred by the doctrine of laches when in fact the Decision to place the Democratic Candidate on the Primary ballot was only reached on February 28, 2012 and arbitrarily contrary to the duty to hear complaints and conduct investigation of crimes being conducted and having been conducted that Respondent Obama and his agents including the California entity of Obama for America were properly served and named, have unclean hands and have made admissions against interest regarding the so-called birth place and both the 2007 stamped and 2011 stamped alleged birth certificates are false and forgeries. Based upon evidence the CA SOS and it employees ignored administrative election complaints by petitioners as a matter of partisan basis in violation the their oath of office as public officers to

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 18 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

served and protect the sanctity of the ballot, and that the references made by Respondent Obama that the California Democratic Party must be added as a nunc pro tunc Respondent Defendant herein as a matter of record compelling state interest for this court to hear as a matter of the evidence presented on an expedited discovery and hearing schedule. Although the Democratic primary is moot as there is only one candidate, nevertheless it must be resolved so as to provide the Democratic Party opportunity to fill the vacancy with a legitimate eligible candidate or otherwise would be un assigned at the National convention from the state of California in August 2012.
41.

That Petitioner has not requested this relief previously as the new evidence has

just become available, and as such must be considered by the this court as compelling reason for there to be a expedited hearing on the merits of the forged document, false filing by the agents of Respondent Obama and the Partisan activities of a public officer(s) to assist in fraud and continued spoliation of the public record find that Respondent Obama is not eligible to appear on the Democratic Primary ballot starting no later than March 29, 2012 for the schedule June 5, 2012 California primary elections. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons based upon new evidence submitted herein, and because there is no express provision of law that directs U.S. Congress and/or electors of the electoral college for California and/or a political party the duty to determine POTUS candidate Constitutional eligibility, the issue of Presidential eligibility remains a plenary matter to be determined by the State Legislature under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2. Therefore, the State may not relinquish the authority and responsibility it has to determine ballot configuration and candidate access. The Respondent SOS has exercised this duty with the Peace and Freedom Candidate Peta Lindsay by barring her from the ballot because she does not meet the Constitutional qualification of age as

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 19 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

required under Article II, Section 1 as she is only 27 and needs to be 35. If Respondent SOS fails to act in this inherent State duty regarding Obama and those similarly situated, the Court is empowered, otherwise with original jurisdiction under CEC 13314 to make a determination of qualification when there is sufficient evidence and proof of a fraud. The PETITIONERS have established that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates eligibility. This Amended petition is required because on January 6, 2012 Petitioners evidence that Barack Obama was at least Born a Citizen under the 14th Amendment definition rather than a natural-born Citizen, with a British subject father already established, and on March 1, 2012 is proven wrong by the COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report that the same 2012 CoLB is forged that raises suspicion that Barack Obama is not even Born a Citizen in the USA per se; and further, supported by evidence of falsification, spoliation, concealment of records, admissions against interest under POTUS control that substantiates need for ordering expedited interim discovery for expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits as California is within the primary calendar time for the Presidential election of 2012. WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS respectfully pray that this Court: 1. Issue a Peremptory Writ for Stay of BOWEN ballot printing until further order; 2. Enjoin BOWEN from placing the names of candidates who have failed to so prove their eligibility on the 2012 California Presidential primary election ballot; 3. Bar Barack Obama from the California Primary Ballot until he release the August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 travel microfilm; 4. Mandate that BOWEN require all candidates for the office of President of the United States provide sufficient proof of eligibility prior to approving their names for the ballot; 5. Bar Barack Obama from the California Primary Ballot until he provides evidence which proves that he is a natural-born Citizen born in the U.S.A. of U.S. Citizen parents;

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 20 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6. Find California Elections Code 6901 to be unconstitutional and unenforceable; 7. For attorneys fees under CCP 1021.5, and; 8. Grant PETITIONERS such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

________________________ Pamela Barnett ______________ Date Sacramento, CA

First Amended Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Restraint of Fundraising

Page 21 of 21