Plaintiff |


V. | Case No. 1:20-cv-000840-MRB


| Judge Michael R. Barrett




Defendants. |



Plaintiff submits this is not frivolous law suit as it deals with a Constitutional issue and not a political issue. Defendants state that more than a century ago the Supreme Court ruled that a person born in the United States is a "natural born citizen' but give no supporting evidence or case law to support that claim. This is nothing but hopes, wishes and dreams, not law. The 14th Amendment to which they are obviously referring makes her only a "Citizen of the United States". The same as the founders that signed the Declaration of Independence were made citizens. No where in the 14th Amendment does it make anyone a natural born citizen. No where in the deliberations of the authors of the 14th Amendment did they even discuss the notion that a 14th Amendment citizen would considered natural born.


Defendants claim this is a 13th hour challenge. The reason was caused by Joe Biden waiting until the last minute to select Kamala Harris as his running mate. Had that happened in the normal time summer time frame in June or July like history shows us, this wouldn't be a last minute challenge.

This is not my first attempt at getting this constitutional issue settled as I have been working on this since before the 2008 national election. I have went the Ohio SoS and the Ohio legislature, the Warren county Board of Elections and again to the SoS just a month ago with no response. Suit was brought against the Ohio Secretary of State in 2008, to ask for proof Obama was a natural born citizen since he was born to a foreign father. The case was dismissed because the Ohio Legislature has never instructed the SoS to verify or validate any candidate for national office. The case was dismissed in laymen terms because there was/is no legislative instructions to verify any candidate and it was "hearsay" as to where Obama was born. All of those agencies contacted previously on this subject are spending public money or taxpayer dollars on this election, in the form of millions of dollars on the printing of ballots and the salary costs of all those involved... on a candidate that is not eligible.. The costs of this are completely unethical.

Plaintiff submits that he is a disenfranchised voter or a voter that has been disqualified because of disenfranchisement. He states that voter disenfranchisement or disqualification is a form suffrage of a person or group of people or a practice that has the effect of preventing a person from exorcising the right to vote for a qualified


candidate. Plaintiff states as a voter he has the right to consider and vote for only constitutionally qualified candidates who meet the requirements of office.

Plaintiff's standing and specific harm arises from a 12 year local government battle trying to get this issue settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, citizens, and voters of not only Warren County Ohio but also across the nation. According to the FEC, the fact that in 2020, the general election grant will have been $103.7 million per each major political party and less for the minor parties. It is estimated that between 2008 and 2018 taxpayers spent $48 billion dollars on running elections. These are taxpayer dollars or the public's money freely given for each candidate. To give an ineligible candidate any taxpayer money is unconscionable and has to be illegal. The FEC also states that "Once the FEC determines that a candidate has met the eligibility requirements", it certifies the amount of public funds to which the candidate is entitled". There is no eligibility verification by the FEC other than a "Rubber Stamp" certifying the candidates The candidates, Biden and Harris have stated that they will raise taxes on everyone earning over $400K a year in income and raise the taxes of corporations. It seems everyone but Biden and Harris understand that the taxes raised "on the rich" and the corporations they speak of, will be handed back down to the consumer, me and the voters, in the form of higher prices to offset the rise in the taxation of these "Rich people" and corporations and will raise the tax liability of me and everyone else if they


are allowed to continue this constitutional charade should they be elected.

The idea that the defendants have no ability to remove Kamala Harris from the election is ludicrous, all they have to do is decertify or remove her from as a viable candidate and replace her with another.

Defendants, continue to admit she is a "Citizen of the United States" as stated in the 14th Amendment but the 12th Amendment to the Constitution says she has to be a natural born citizen the same as the President.

To explain where and how the first natural born citizens of the United States would come about, its actually explained in the very article we are discussing. Article II Section I Clause 5 Presidential Requirements. "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". Plaintiff asks, where will the natural born citizens they speak of come from? They will be the children of the newly created original citizens as stated in the article at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution. Born of citizen parents. There can be no other way. You cannot by congressional acts make anyone natural born. Only nature can do that. To be natural born one needs to be born both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis., soil and blood. Congress can only give them statutory citizenship once the original 10 Amendments were written and signed into law. Everything after that is statutory law.



Plaintiff admits that Kamala Harris was born in Oakland California on Oct. 20, 1964 to a Jamaican father and an India mother. Defendants admit she her parents were foreigners when she was born. According to the Wikipedia page her mother emigrated from Chennai in India in 1960 and her father, whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica. Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement before her parents can even apply for naturalization making Kamala Harris a 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States via WKA. Aliens such as her parents, admitted as temporary visitors, students or workers may not lawfully form an intent to remain in the United States because they have visas that require that the holder have “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15). This excludes them as lawful “domiciliaries.”

Defendants state that she was nominated on August 18, 2020. They also state that Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose certified the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United Sates to appear on the Ohio Ballot. Ohio Secretary of State's Directive 2020-19 shows exactly the farce the SoS certification process is. This certification process is merely a "Rubber Stamp' as the Vice-President doesn't have to sign anything and is never investigated or researched in any way to verify their citizenship status.


Nothing was certified other than to stamp the words "Certified" on a document, the same as the FEC does.

Defendants want to use the idea that voting has already started as a reason to dismiss this complaint which has nothing whatsoever to do with determining the eligibility of Harris to serve.

Plaintiff submits that yes, she is an anchor baby as stated. It seems the defendants and their attorneys have no idea what the term "Anchor Baby" means, I will explain it to them. An anchor baby is child born on US soil to TWO non citizen parents. I think she fits that description quite well.

Defendants state that I failed on an attempted service to each defendant but that isn't accurate, it was the Warren County Ohio, Common Pleas court that did the service based on the addresses I provided. The addresses I provided are the addresses of record for the defendant parties. As I triple checked all of them to be as accurate as possible. For the defendants to claim that Biden and Harris have not been served and know nothing about this, then who hired Perkins Coie LLP? They didn't just take this up on their own accord. Someone had to hire them and make them aware of this complaint.


Plaintiff submits that he is directly harmed by the failure and the refusal of the election authorities to comply with the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitutional requirements and the public spending of tax payer dollars on an election


that is fraught with corruption that he is petitioning the court for relief of. Plaintiff asks the court for standing because the harm involved has a large degree of a seriously reasonable relationship to the situation in the complaint, and the long term continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States court system, this is grounds for asking for an illegal action to

be struck down as violating the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be wholly or directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to an illegal action or law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

392 U.S. 83 88 S.Ct. 1942 20 L.Ed.2d 947 Florence FLAST et al., Appellants, v. Wilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.

"In terms relevant to the question for decision in this case, the judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to 'cases' and 'controversies.' As is so often the situation in constitutional adjudication, those two words have an iceberg quality, containing beneath their surface simplicity submerged complexities which go to the very heart of our constitutional form of government. Embodied in the words 'cases' and 'controversies' are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.


And in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Justiciability is the term of art employed to give expression to this dual limitation placed upon federal courts by the case-and-controversy doctrine.

When the emphasis in the standing problem is placed on whether the person invoking a federal court's jurisdiction is a proper party to maintain the action, the weakness of the Government's argument in this case becomes apparent. The question whether a particular person is a proper party to maintain the action does not, by its own force, raise separation of powers problems related to improper judicial interference in areas committed to other branches of the Federal Government. Such problems arise, if at all, only from the substantive issues the individual seeks to have adjudicated. Thus, in terms of Article III limitations on federal court jurisdiction, the question of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, supra, 300 U.S. at 240—241, 57 S.Ct. at 464. A taxpayer may or may not have the requisite personal stake in the outcome, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Therefore, we find no absolute bar in Article III to suits by federal taxpayers challenging allegedly unconstitutional federal taxing and spending programs. However, our decisions establish that, in ruling


on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues for another purpose, namely, to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. The nexus demanded of federal taxpayers has two aspects to it. First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.

In defendants argument they stated three distinct actions need to take place for standing to be given. Plaintiff says that all three have been met. 1. the injury has been stated in this memorandum above. 2. It is the defendant that isn't Article II Section 1 Clause 5 eligible. 3. As will be stated below the constitutional legal facts of the case will insure a positive ruling.

As for the defendants claim there will be "no civil unrest and other deleterious effects to the stability of government", then why are they boarding up our cities just days before our national election, getting ready for the possible riots and looting that has been ongoing and more promised for months across this nation? Why are they installing climb proof fencing around the White House if government inst at a risk of harm? Why are they announcing defensive measures to insure the safety and well being of government employees especially those protecting our National Monuments and other places of government? If that isnt a "sort particularized injury in fact that standing requires then we are in trouble as a Republic of free people with the constitutional right to ask our government for redress of grievances.


Plaintiff finds it odd they would try to use Hollander v. McCain in their argument, as we'll discuss John McCain later in this memorandum, as that case like all brought against Obama in the courts were dismissed on technical grounds and never heard on the merits of the cases. Let it be known that there are still, to this day, millions of US citizens that still do not believe Obama was a natural born citizen because he was born

to a Kenyan born foreign father which makes him actually a British subject.

For defendants to imply that Biden, Harris, Perez et al, do not have the ability to remove her from consideration as Vice-President is ludicrous. Not to mention the fact that the election will be over before this is even heard in court and there would be no need to remove her from the ballot but a need to remove her from being Vice-President should they win the election. All they have to do is tell the voters she is no longer eligible to be Vice-President do to constitutional constraints and we are going with a new Vice-Presidential candidate, Plaintiff thinks the voters vote for the President not the Vice-President.

Defendants admit the job of making and distributing the ballots is the job of the Ohio SoS andthe Election boards and I can only assume they do understand there is a monetary cost of this process to the taxpayer via taxpayer dollars or public monies.

For plaintiffs to act as if this isn't a serious enough constitutional problem facing the Republic that it warrants an extraordinary remedy, this citizen/voter would like to know what does? Usurpation is a serious crime.


As to the question of mandamus, plaintiff submits that 1. since the plaintiff was once in the military, the United States Air Force and took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, plaintiff still holds that oath dear and as a result has a clear right to relief. 2. the defendants a have legal obligation under penalty of election fraud in Ohio to be fair, honest, straight forward and transparent in their submission of candidate

qualifications to the Ohio Secretary of State so those candidates can be certified.

As defendants use Paragraph 4.9.1 of the original compliant in their argument on relief, they fail to see that since the election is now over, the first question in the relief requested still holds true. What law do they think makes a child born to TWO foreign parents, a natural born citizen when the defendants have stated several times already that she is only a "Citizen of the United States? The remaining acts of relief requested will fall in place based on whether or not they won the election.

For defendants to state they do not have any legal duty or inherent legal responsibilities owed to the voters and plaintiff on the subject of candidate eligibility shows just how little they care for the constitution and the rule of law. It is a felony to lie on candidate qualification questionnaires to the heads of elections in the States unlike the lies in the ads politicians can run.

Plaintiff submits that there was no request for a restraining order but if the courts should see that is the remedy for this compliant then plaintiff would be agreeable to that action if the court so chooses.


Again the defendants want to use the argument that Plaintiff waited over a month after Harris` selection to file, as a reason to not allow the relief. It was filed as timely as could be only because no one dared to think they would be so careless to nominate and an anchor baby for Vice-President. As stated earlier had Biden made the selection in the historical framework of a selection around mid summer then this would have been

settled long ago.

Defendants state "As time passes, the State's interest in proceeding with the election increases in importance as resources are committed and irrevocable decisions are made" and an aggrieved individual becomes less credible by his having slept on his rights. Plaintiff submits this is hardly the case in this complaint and shows the defendants reaching for any technical issue they can muster to keep this complaint from being heard on the merits of the case.

Plaintiff submits that less than two weeks after the selection of Harris as running mate the voters were voting in many places. Plaintiff had no control over the timing of this, only Joe Biden possessed that power had he made the section in mid summer.

Defendants constitutional claim is the one that fails because she is born of two foreign citizen parents.

Plaintiff also finds it odd that the defendants would cite United States v. Elkins because that was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to


be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Elkins court did look at the constitutional issues in that case, the 4th Amendment exactly.


Plaintiff submits, in his letter of July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington: “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”.

Plaintiff submits Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty or nation other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Kamala Harris allegiance was that of her father to Jamaica or at the least to also India for her mother making her a dual citizen at birth.

Defendants continue to claim that the 14th Amendment makes her a natural born citizen when in fact there was never a discussion about the newly freed slaves being considered natural born citizens. The fact of the matter is through their historical discussions and deliberations and writings, we can see the true intent of what the authors had in mind for the 14th Amendment.

Plaintiff can only surmise that a historical lesson about the 14th Amendment is due here. The Congress in their great wisdom understood that after granting the slaves


their freedom via the 13th Amendment they were now a people with out a land. They were citizens of nowhere. So the 14th came about to give these newly freed slaves United States Citizenship. The 14th was not meant to give anyone else, United States Citizenship. The 14th Amendment was just an extension of existing law. In 1866, two years before the 14th Amendment was written, by U.S. statute, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Code, defined who is a citizen: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States”.

The 14th Amendment was meant only for the newly freed slaves, no one else. Then we should ask were those newly freed slaves in 1868, the day after the ratification of the 14th Amendment eligible to be President as Kamala Harris claims? I hardly think so. But the newly freed slaves children, once given the right to vote, since they would now be the children born of the citizens would be natural born and eligible to be President, the same as the children of the citizens at the signing of the constitution were the first natural born citizens as described earlier.

We must look at the law and intention of the 14th Amendment to understand exactly what happened with the erroneous decision in WKA that gave us "Birthright Citizenship". The intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment is where the WKA court should have went to find the true intent of the 14th Amendment that coincided with the existing laws of the land, not English common Law to settle a U.S. citizenship problem in the 20th century America.


John Armor Bingham on what a natural born citizen is:
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.

In 1862 Bingham, stated on the House floor: “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.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866). The same as Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884). Nothing changed from the the signing of the constitution to 1866 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Nothing changed till WKA in 1898.

Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull, discussed the subject of jurisdiction in reference to the 14th Amendment. Here is what they had to say.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign


power. You can have no foreign allegiance as Harris parents had when she was born.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, further stated as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and author of the Thirteenth Amendment, The Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States at that time. [T]he 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. Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2] The United States to this day holds a treaty with both Jamaica and India. The Navajo tribe could be exchanged for French, Jamaican, Indian it doesn't change the law.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard again clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the

United States.


This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Senator Howard's intention of the 14th was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.

Plaintiff states there is no such law or ruling where defendants plead there has been "A century and a half of consistent, binding precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court" that states any person born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. There are no Supreme Court decisions that state anything of the kind. The Supreme Court has stated on at least six occasions that to be natural born one has to be born to TWO U.S. citizen parents.

In Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) a case the defendants made reference to, that was decided unanimously. The court was looking at a citizenship and suffrage issue only. In that decision the Chief Justice stated on the subject of citizenship:


"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 (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

The nomenclature of the times on many constitutional discussions was Vattel when ever possible, not English Common Law on this subject. This unanimous ruling concurs exactly with what Vattel's, The Law of Nations or the Principles of the Laws of Nature state: “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. 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. The language of Vattel coincides exactly with previous Supreme Court cases such as Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and many others we will list below.


And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the

part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.” The same nomenclature as Vattel states.

All of the cases listed below refer to Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) as the authority on citizenship and natural born citizen status.

Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)

Below is chronilogiocal list with the citations utilizing Vattel as the proper definition. 1814 – The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289, (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens).


Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212th paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling: "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 inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Alexander Hamilton: Enclosure: France and America, [2 October 1800]... by mutual consent or war, it was remarked by the undersigned, that their conviction was clearly otherwise; and that Vattel, in particular, the best approved of modern writers, not only held that a treaty violated by one party might... The founders used Vattel willingly.
1857 – Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, (Justice Daniel concurring uses same definition and cites Vattel)
1875 – Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-681884, (same definition without citing Vattel)


1879 – Ex Parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
1890 – United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal.)
(cites and quotes Ex Parte Reynolds, same definition and cites Vattel)

By somewhat less direct argument: 1872 – Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36,

21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36

Defendants state the Wong court used 17th century English Common Law to decide a case brought about in the 20th and 21st centuries instead of going to intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. Past precedent as in 1884 – Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 which this Justice also presided over and ruled, says the court used past precedent instead of English Common Law, after listening to all the arguments. That is why the court rejected the thought of simply being born on U.S. Soil makes one a natural born citizen and made Wong a citizen only. The fallacy about the English Common Law definition of natural born subjects being used in the 20th century America is that the Kings of England from 1700 were not British at all but born German from the House of Hanover. They were not even British themselves. They tried to make something natural born from nothing.

June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th’s ratification, Congress issued issued a joint congressional report, House Report No. 784, stating: “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” Her Jamaican an Indian parents make her a dual citizen.


Plaintiff submits in the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Horace Gray gives an inaccurate representation of “natural born subject”, while trying to use English Common law and Blackstone, while also ignoring the writings of the authors of the 14th, which he identifies as resulting from birth on any of the Kingdom’s soil, and indicates the source

of this claim to be Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries. However in making this claim, Gray only cherry-picks Blackstone’s representation in that same 1765 Commentaries, given that Blackstone identifies the terms of natural born subject to be progressively expanding, even to include those born overseas, and done by Crown dictate, therefore only a statutory definition, even referencing the British statutes purely to increase the Crowns tax revenue. America was and is at treaty with Britain which posessed India as one of the Kings domains, her mothers home land, again confirming the definition of Sen. Trumbull used to exclude foreigners.

In fact only 30 years prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, in 1736, British jurist Matthew Bacon and one of the King George II personal barristers recognized the original terms of “natural born subject” to be the same as Vattels: “All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions” (Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77)

Plaintiff states that yes, English Common Law was used readily as the nation grew but the very language of the Declaration say they threw off the bonds of tyranny and that tyranny was English Common Law.


George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights" and one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

“I have no aversion to common law. English common law was never American colonial common law. The English Parliament did not make common law for the American colonies. It was this lack of representation in Parliament that, indeed, lead to the American Revolution.” - Supreme Court Justice Morrison Waite

As for the defendants claim that somehow they can muster a natural born citizen as stated in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, from the 14th Amendment will have to be called magic or an illusion because it isn't there to see.

A footnote on the bottom of page 14 of the defendants Memorandum to dismiss they again claim that not all have been served and some know nothing of the complaint. One can see real quick that is a false statement as all one has to do is look at the list of the people assigned to the Memorandum and the companies they work for and the history of who those law firms are known to work for. They work for the Democratic party and they know all to well what is going on and to have hired these lawyers.

Plaintiff submits that there is a concerted effort among some people to make the requirement of being a natural born citizen go away. Plaintiff understand the State of New York no long requires one to be a natural born citizen to get on the ballot for President. One only needs to be a "Citizen of the United States".


Plaintiff submits that on page 15 of their Memorandum they say over and over, the same ludicrous statement that she is natural born, and then say at the bottom of the page she is only as citizen. They seem to be confusing the word "citizen" with the term "natural born citizen". It seems they think or act like if they say she is natural born enough, it will magically happen. WKA made Wong a citizen and nothing more if they had wanted him to be a natural born citizen they would have made him one but that didn't happen. They gave Wong the same type of citizenship as a naturalized citizen has. The same as a natural born citizen in all respects save that of the Presidency.

Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been


fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies.”

Again if they wanted Wong to be a natural born citizen they would have stated it instead they said he was a citizen and only a citizen.

On page 18 of defendants Motion to dismiss they erroneously state that Inglis supports their arguement when in fact it ruled the same as Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) That a child born of a foreign father is that of his father and not a citizen. They also state over and over again citations that make people "citizens" nothing more. Again plaintiff syggests they are hoping for a miracle and are hoping this court is it. Again at the top of page 18 they try to mislead the court when they state ""Article II reference to "natural born citizen" as referring to individuals born in the the United Sates". Se Minor v. happerstte, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 167 91874) They leave off the part about being born to TWO citizen parents as shown earlier. I have created this document under the premise that it is a crime to mislead the court.

Morrison was ruled a citizen. Plyler was ruled a citzen. In the INS case erroneously ruled as a citizen.

Plaintiff submits that for Ankeney v. Governor of State of Indiana for any court to rule that WKA made anyone a natural born citizen is ludicrous and if there were ever a court case that needs revisited and reversed it is this one because they created a natural born citizen from nothing, a magic tick at best.



Plaintif suggests all aspects of the defendants arguments have been shown to not be of the law, bogus at best, nothing but hopes and dreams to blur the words of the constitution. This court should not allow this to happen.

Plaintiff submits the complaint should continue forward and be heard on the merits of the case.

As stated in the original complaint, this will be the first time in our Republics 244 year history that a child born to foreigner parents has ever attempted to run for President or Vice-President going against exactly what John Jay warned us about in 1787.

From the founding in 1776 to 1898 a child born on US soil to a foreign father was always considered a foreigner. How could that change over night in 1898? Wong was made a citizen nothing more. How can he become a natural born citizen over night?

The United States Senate settled the question of what a natural born citizen is, in 2008, in a binding Senate resolution. A child born to TWO citizen parents..

WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008) – Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy.


Leahy states: I asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President? Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

Plaintiff submits that Joe Biden was a Senator in 2008. and voted on Senate resolution 510 on John McCain's being a natural born citizen and it was a unanimous vote from all 99 Senators. Joe Biden voted in the affirmative on the fact that since John McCain was born to two citizen parents there was no doubt he was a natural born citizen.


Because Plaintiff insists that he, like all taxpayers and lawfully registered voters, suffer significant personal injury when the names of unqualified candidates are permitted to be listed on ballots for the offices of President and Vice-President, Plaintiff will not back down from his position that he has standing, or should have standing. To the extent that existing case law says otherwise, Plaintiff asserts his position as a good faith argument for the reversal or modification of defendants constitutional position. If Plaintiff understands Defendants’ arguments accurately, it would only be members of the elitist political class (or politically powerful organizations friendly to them) that would ever


have standing to challenge such unlawful candidates. But if history tells us anything, it is that the political elites that can rarely, if ever, be trusted to represent the interests of anyone but themselves. Consequently, Plaintiff and other “lowly” citizens like him should always have standing to mount fundamental constitutional challenges to the political class.

Respectfully submitted,

David Neal Pro Se

6117 Hendrickson Rd.

Middletown, Ohio 45044

Phone 513-422-4800


I hereby certify that a copy of foregoing was served upon Defendants lawyer Rachel Bloomekatz, by regular mail and emailon November 6, 2020, at the following address:


Rachel Bloomekatz (0091376)

1148 Neil Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Phone: (614) 259-7611

Facsimile: (614) 559-6731

Counsel to Presidential Candidate Joseph Biden

and Vice Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris

Marc Elias (admission pro hac vice pending)

John M. Devaney (admitted pro hac vice)

John M. Geise (admitted pro hac vice)


700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20005-3960

Phone: (202) 654-6200

Facsimile: (202) 654-6211

Counsel to Kamala Harris and Tom Perez,

Chairman of the Democratic National


N. Zachary West (0087805)

O'Cᴏɴɴᴏʀ Hᴀsᴇʟᴇʏ, & Wɪʟʜᴇʟᴍ, LLC

531 South Drexel Avenue, Suite 5

Columbus, OH 43209

Phone: (614) 208-4375

Counsel for Ohio Democratic Party and Warren

County Democratic Party

1The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America to End English Common Law. The Declaration of the thirteen United States of America was a refusal to follow any longer, revocation of acceptance and the cancellation and suspension of English common law and monarchy. Once the Declaration was signed into law they never looked back and took on the laws of fairness and common sense. The Laws of Nations or The Principles of the Laws of Nature. Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel were the Founders most visited readings in the writing of the Constitution, not English Common Law.