From: Your Name
[see addressing information at the end of this instrument]
To: Loretta E. Lynch, as the,
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR ACTION
TO SECURE WRITS OF QUO WARRANTO
September 27, 2013
Dear Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General:
As a matter of law this Notice an Demand is a formal written complaint and request, which is to be
given precedence over all other actions or matters with which you are involved other than similar (Quo
Warranto based) actions which may have been filed prior to this complaint and request.
By these presents, I require your immediate attention to this complaint, which I bring to request that
you either take immediate appropriate actions to secure the herein requested Writs of Quo Warranto or
timely (within 3 days) respond to this request by informing me that you do not desire to so proceed with
such an action; in which case, in accord with my constitutionally secured rights (see at least: 9th Article of
Amendment), and in accord with the respective laws regarding such matters, I request that you
acknowledge my right to proceed with such an action, in the appropriate courts as an independent
prosecutor with the full authority of your Office, with the intent of securing an appropriate Quo Warranto
hearing and remedy on this matter; which is brought to you in accord with the following facts and law:
This matter concerns the fact that on, January 20, 2013, Congress seated Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
(hereinafter “Obama”) as President of the United States in spite of the fact that he does not lawfully
qualify for that office.
Respectively, I contest that in accord with the Constitution of the United States, at Article 2, § 1,
clause 5, which provides: “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of
President”, Obama does not lawfully qualify for said Office because, regardless of where Obama was
born, his father was never a citizen of the United States; which is a required element of “a natural born
Citizen”.
Though some may allege the phrase, “natural born Citizen”, is not defined in the Constitution,
therefore, the meaning of the phrase falls to:
A. Its standard meaning, derived from the English Language:
 In the English Language, “natural born Citizen”, is a ‘noun phrase’; that is a noun modified by
the adjectives in the phrase. Of course, the noun is “Citizen” and the adjectives modifying the
noun are the phrase: “natural born”; therefore, given that:
1. The only condition of natural birth that defines citizenship is that condition where both
parents of a child are citizens of the same country—in which condition (the world over) the
child’s citizenship is by its “natural birth” a citizen of that same country; and,
2. In all other conditions of one’s natural birth citizenship is a function of law not nature;
Therefore, the English Language phrase: “natural born Citizen”, defines the national citizenship
of the “natural born Citizen” is the same as that of both of its parents;
and/or,
B. Its meaning derived from the intent of the framers of the Constitution; which cannot possibly be
more clear given the facts that:
1. The United States was generally colonized from Great Britain; and, the laws of Great Britain (and
other countries from which the people in America came) at the time (through the present) clearly
Page 1 of 4
state that a natural born Citizen of a country is one who was born of parents both of whom are
citizens of that same country:
a. In Great Britain, “natural born Citizen” is a class of citizen defined by the common
parentage of both of the child’s parents; and, English law references the source of the law
as ancient Roman Law; and,
b. The so referenced Roman law is still current today: “‘Civitas’, plural, ‘Civitates’:
citizenship in ancient Rome. Roman citizenship was acquired by (the nature of) birth if
both parents were Roman citizens (cives)”.
2. The founders referred to and relied on THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE
LAW OF NATURE, by Emmerich de Vattel (Joseph Chitty ed., Philadelphia, T. & J.W. Johnson
& Co. 1867 (1758)) as the “Law of Nations”; so much so that they directly referenced it in the
Constitution, at Article 1, § 8, clause 10, when they granted Congress the authority: “To define
and punish…Offences against the Law of Nations.”; and, because the Supreme Court has
consistently recognized the Constitution’s reference to the Law of Nations as a reference to
Vattel’s book ibid.; and, because Vattel carefully distinguished in The Law of Nations, at Chapter
19, so clearly defined the elements necessary to “a natural born Citizen” as:
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives. The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by
certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are
those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and
perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their
fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary
means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the
society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that
of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently
whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the
society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a
father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's
birth, and not one's country.
Ҥ 213. Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent
abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its
laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not
enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them.
Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of
citizens of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages.
Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State
passes to their children.”
3. The colonial colleges that taught law to said framers, like Harvard, The College of William &
Mary and King’s College (Columbia University), all used The Law of Nations as their text
regarding the definition of such terms; and,
4. The framers did not specifically distinguish the term, “natural born Citizen”, to mean something
other than that which was, at the time, well accepted as the common meaning of the term; which,
they would have done had they imagined any other meaning.
Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to imagine the phrase, “natural born Citizen”, as having any
other possible meaning.
Further, the Supreme Court consistently followed the definition provided in said Law of Nations
when it ruled on related matters; as we see in, Shanks vs. Dupont; 28 US 242 (1830):
“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the
citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father,
partake of his national character, as a citizen of that country.”
Page 2 of 4
Also, in Dred Scott vs. Sandford; 60 US 393 (1857), Justice Daniel cited and quoted directly from
Vattel’s Law of Nations (supra) as follows:
“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.”
Respectively, it is unmistakable the constitutional term “natural born citizen”, requires (as noted
above) of all parties that qualify as candidates for the office of President of the United States, must have,
by definition, been born of parents [that is: both a mother and a father] that are both citizens of the United
States at the time of the candidate’s birth;
Therefore, because Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (the alleged father of President Obama) was born in
Nyang’ Oma Kogelo, Kenya, Africa (a British Protectorate) in 1936, and died November 24, 1982 in
Nairobi, Africa having never been a United States citizen, President Obama is not, and can never be, a
natural born citizen of the United States;
The British Nationality Act of 1948, at Part II, § 5, states:
“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of
the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at
the time of the birth.”
Wherefore, President Obama was born a citizen of Great Britain.
Further, given that, as a prior U.S. Senator, President Obama cosponsored the 110th Congress’ Senate
Resolution 511, which resolved that:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama
Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’
under the Article II Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
Wherefore, it appears that President Obama knew or should have known that because his father was
never a United States a citizen, he (President Obama) could not lawfully qualify for the office of President
of the United States.
Respectively, I, and many other actual citizens are alarmed and appalled that (though this matter of
President Obama’s qualification for the office remained unresolved despite the massive amount of
attention and concern it has received in the media) Congress twice seated Obama as President.
Respectively, the peace and dignity of the People of My State demand that this matter be resolved once
and for all by court actions requesting Writs of Quo Warranto against the members of Congress that failed
to honor their oaths of office and uphold the Constitution’s mandate that:
1. No person other than a “natural born Citizen” ever be seated as President of the United States
(see: United States Constitution, Article 2, § 1, clause 5);
2. Congress must vet the constitutional qualifications of every person before they can ascend to and
be seated in the office of President of the United States (see: 12th Article of Amendment).
Wherefore, I have made this request of you now and demand that a proper action in the nature of the
people’s right to ask, “By what authority?”, in a hearing for a Writ of Quo Warranto to be held in The
United States District Court for the District of My State to compel each member of Congress representing
the congressional district known as MyState - District # including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Representative MyRepresentative, of the United States Congress’ House of Representatives;
Senator Senior Senator, of the United States Senate;
Senator Junior Senator, of the United States Senate; and,
The President of the Senate, Joe Biden;
Page 3 of 4
To either show by what authority they:
1. Failed to vet the constitutional qualifications of Obama before allowing him to be seated as
President; and,
2. Seated Obama as the President of the United States when he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the
United States.
Respectively, I must be notified immediately about your decision, whether you desire to prosecute
these actions against each of the above named parties; so, I can take whatever steps are necessary to
timely compel this action to fruition.
As a matter of law, this issue must be placed to the top of your to do list and you must respond to me,
ASAP. I will have mailed, e-mailed and faxed a copy of this Notice and Demand for an action in the
nature of Quo Warranto to your office; and, I will be awaiting your timely response. Because you will
receive this request by fax almost immediately, when sent, I expect you to timely respond in accord with
your receipt of that fax.
If you, or your assigns, decline to take action in this matter I will proceed according to the law as it
relates to such actions being brought in the District of My State District Court and therefore I need your
response immediately.
Any untimely delay in your response will be considered a decline of your choice to bring this action;
and, due to the timely nature required to proceed with an action in the nature of Quo Warranto, any course
of delay on your part may imply collusion on your part.
Therefore, your immediate response is necessary,
Further, you have the right to decline from proceeding; however, by doing so, you waive forever any
rights you may have had to proceed in this case and you are required to hold this action and its proceeding
in confidence.
If you have any reasonable requirement for additional time to make your decision, you may request
that time from me immediately, in writing. Failure to do so constitutes decline of your options in this
matter as heretofore mentioned.
Respectfully submitted,
Your Name, a Citizen of the United States of America.
c/o: mailing location
street address
city, state
(#####)
Page 4 of 4