ineligiblecandidatepresent,subjecttocriminalaction(theftofvotebyfalsepretext)oras

acommissionofacriminalaction(misprisionoffelony(perjury)).

6.Judicialreviewstipulatesa10daytimelyfilingperiodpursuanttoEL12202whichthe
plaintiffhasmet(SeeStatementoffacts)(c)TimingofLawsuitduringelectioncyclewith
respecttolaches)andisacounterargumenttothedefenseoflaches.Howisitthatthe
CourtcanignoreevidenceofcompliancewithEL12202intheformofaletterwrittenby
defendantMr.JaredDeMarinis,theheadofcampaignfinancefortheSBE,datedMarch9,
2012whichacknowledgesthattheSBEofficiallydismissedtheinitialchallengeto
Mr.Obamaseligibilityonthisdate,wellafterhisnamewascertifiedunderactiveeligibility
challengeinJanuary.
ItistheconsideredopinionoftheplaintiffsthatthejudgmentonFairvObamawrittenby
JudgeThomasStansfieldoftheCircuitCourtofCarrollCountyonAugust27,2012,isnt
merelyinerror,itisflatoutwrongconsideringthemagnitudeoftheissueattheheartof
thematterwhichisPresidentialeligibilityandthePresidentialqualificationsclause[5]and
howthisimpactsStateelectoralprocessesandcertifications.

AllthatstandsbetweenjusticeandfurthercatastrophicfailureofthePresidentialelectoral
processinMarylandisadefinition.Thatdefinitionisnaturalborncitizenwhichnostate
electionsofficial,Judge,politicalparty,congressionalentity,politicallackey,professor,
lawyerorcandidatehasjurisdictiontodefine.Keepinmind,BlacksLawDictionaryhasno
authoritytodefinenaturalborncitizen.Thereisaninterpretationofwhatitmightmeanin
thisConstitutionalRepubliccontainedinthatreference,butitisonlyaninterpretationand
shouldnotberelieduponasasourceanymorethanthefatallyflawedopinionoutof
Indiana,Ankenyv.GovernorofIndianaAnkenyv.Governor916N.E.2d6782009Ind.,To
dosowouldbetocommitjudicialmalpracticeonanordernotseensinceDredScottwas
thelawoftheland.

II.PARTIESTOTHEPROCEEDING:

Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g

ThePetitioners(Appellantsbelow)areeligibleMarylandvoters,TracyA.Fair(ProSe)of
19W.ObrechtRoad,Sykesville,MD.21784andMaryC.Miltenberger(ProSe)of514
ValentineAve.,Cumberland,Md.21502
TheRespondents(Appelleesbelow)areRobertL.Walker,ChairmanoftheMarylandState
BoardofElections,LindaH.Lamone,StateAdministratorofMarylandandJared
DeMarinis,DirectoroftheCandidacyandCampaignFinanceDivisionoftheMaryland
StateBoardofElectionslocatedat151WestStreet,Suite200,Annapolis,MD21401
JohnP.McDonough,MarylandSecretaryofStatefromtheOfficeoftheSecretaryofState
locatedat16FrancisStreet,Annapolis,MD21401andBarrySoetoroakaBarackHussein
Obamaof1600PennsylvaniaAve.NW,Washington,DC20500.

II.TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

TableofUSSupremeCourtCases
AmericanCo.v.CommissionersoftheDistrict,224U.S.491....................32
Andersonv.Celebrezze,460US780(1983....................................16
BullockvCarter,405US134,405US143(1972...............................31
CityofArlingtonv.CityofFortWorth,873SWrd765770(1994)................33
CousinsvWigoda,419US477,419US490(1975.............................31
DeNoiev.BoardofRegents,609SW2d601,603(Tex.Civ.App.Austin1980)......33
DredScottvSandford,60US393(1857)....................................27
Freev.Bland369US663(1962...........................................13
McGowanv.Parish,228U.S.317..........................................32
MemphisLight,Gas&WaterDivvCraft,436US1,89(1978)..................35
MinorvHappersett,88US162(1874)......................................31
NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254(1964)...........................33
Newmanv.UnitedStatesexRel.Frizzell,238US537(1915).....................17
SibleyvObama(2013),No.12CV1(DDCJune6,2012).......................32
SouthernPacificTerminalCo.vICC,219US498(1911........................35
SusanB.AnthonyListvDriehaus,525Fed.Appx.415,416(6thCir.2013)........31
UnitedStatesv.CaroleneProductsCo.,304US144(1938)......................19
Williamsv.Rhodes393US23(1968)......................................16

TableofMarylandCourtCases

Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
BrashearsvCollision,207Md.339,352,115A.2d289,295(1955)..............34
Buxtonv.Buxton,363Md.634,770A.2d152(2001)...........................15
Demuthv.OldTownBankofBalto,85Md.31718,37A.266,26869(1897).......34
Liddyv.Lamone,398Md.233,24344(2007).................................14
Parkerv.BoardofElectionSupervisors,186A.2d195(Md.1962)................34
Rossv.StateBd.ofElections,387Md.649668(2005..........................34
StateBoardofElectionsv.Snyder,No.122(2007,decided2013,remanded)........30
Weinbergv.Kracke,189Md.275,280(1947).................................32

TableofotherStateCourtCases
Ankenyv.Governor916N.E.2d6782009Ind.................................1
McInnishv.Bennett(2014)AL.............................................15
RattkinTitleCo.v.GrievanceCommitteeofStateBarofTexas,272SW2d.948,955
(Tex.CivApp.FortWorth1954,Nowrit.)...................................33
Rhodesv.MacDonald,670F.Supp.2d1363,1377(M.D.Ga.2009)...............17

Statutes
3USCSection5.........................................................15
3USCSection7.........................................................15
18USCChapter47......................................................17
18USCSection1001....................................................17
18USCSection1002....................................................18
18USCSection1018....................................................18
FederalStatute163501oftheDistrictofColumbia............................17
MDElectionLawSec5201............................................APP6
MDElectionLawSec5301............................................APP6
MDElectionLawSec5601............................................APP6
MDElectionLawSec5705............................................APP6
MDElectionLawSec51203...........................................APP7
MDElectionLawSec6206............................................APP7
MDElectionLawSec6208...........................................APP7
MDElectionLawSec8502............................................APP8
MDElectionLawSec9209...........................................APP8
MDElectionLawSec9210...........................................APP9
MDElectionLawSec12202...................................69,11,17,26
MDElectionLawSec16401..........................................APP8
MDCriminalLawSec.1401.............................................19

ConstitutionalProvisions
FirstAmendment....................................................23,25
FifthAmendment......................................................24

Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
FourteenthAmendment...................................................25
Article2,Section1,Clause5(Presidentialqualificationsclause)................3,30
Article6,Section2(Supremacyclause)..........................1,6,8,1113,21

IV. TABLEOFCONTENTS

I. QuestionsPresented................................................i
II. Partiestotheproceeding..............................................ii
III. TableofAuthorities................................................iii
IV.TableofContents...................................................v
V. PetitionforaWritofCertiorari........................................1
VI. StatementoftheCase................................................2
VII. StatementofFacts.................................................4
a. TheChallengeofObama........................................4
b. TimingoftheLawsuit.........................................7
c. SBEProceduresforCandidateFilingsforaccesstoPrimaryBallot......9
VIII. StatementofStandardReview........................................13
IX. Argument........................................................13
a. ELSec.8502doesnotholdprecedentoverArticleII,Section1,Clause5in
aPresidentialElection............................................13
b. CauseforActionunderELSec.12202...........................17
c. RightofChallengeasderivativeofbothFreeSpeechandRighttoVote..19
d. DoctrineofLachesisnotapplicabletohidetheineligibilityofcandidate21
X. Remedybylaw....................................................24
a. NatureofInjury.............................................24
b. ClaimofRelief..............................................26
XI.ConclusionandPrayerforRelief......................................27
XII.AppendicesandExhibits..............................Separateattachment

Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
V. PETITIONFORWRITOFCERTIORARI
Comesnowthepetitioner,TracyFair,etal,prose,torespectfullypetitionthisHonorable
CourtforawritofcertioraritoreviewthedecisionoftheCircuitCourtofCarrollCounty,
Maryland(hereinafterMD),CaseNo:06C2012060692,andtheopinionofathreejudge
panelintheCourtofSpecialAppeals,dismissingthecaseofFairvWalker(Obama),Case
No.1287,Term2012.Theoriginal(amended)requestforjudicialreviewisfoundinthe
recordextract,pageE6.AcopyofsaiddecisionbyJudgeT.StansfieldoftheCircuitCourt
ofCarrollCountyisattachedandincorporatedfullyhereinasAppendixBonpage4.
Further,theplaintiffsmotioninoppositiontodismissalisalsoincorporatedhereinatpage
E38oftheRecordExtractextract.ExhibitCisthemandateandopinionofthethreejudge
reviewpanelintheCourtofSpecialAppeals,writtenbyJudgeNazarian.

Reviewiswarrantedinthismattertoresolveanissueregardingtheconstitutionaleligibility
ofacandidateforfederaloffice,thePresidencyoftheUnitedStates,anditsplace
in/impactonMDElectionlawandprocess,andbydefect,theplaintiff.
Theissuewhichhasbeenignoredbypreviouscourtsandthedefendantsistheexposureofa
fatallyflawedelectionsprocessthatinitscurrentformhasnomeansbywhich
ineligible/nonqualifiedPresidentialcandidatesareidentified,investigatedandpurgedfrom
theMDelectoralprocess.ThisappealcentersaroundthePresidentialqualificationsclause
andtheSupremacyClauseandtheirimpactonSec.8502oftheMDElectionLawsandthe
certificationsissuedbytheMDSecretaryofState(hereinafterSOS)andtheStateBoardof
Elections(hereinafterSBE).ThisHonorableCourtmustreviewthedecisionsmadebythe
CircuitCourtandothersinthatsaiddecisionsincorrectlyinterpretfederallaw,statelaw,
SupremeCourtstatuteandaconstitutionaltermofartbasedontherelianceonaoutof
statejudicialopinionsoflaweditshouldbeconsideredanexampleofjudicialmalpractice,
AnkenyvGovernorofIndiana(2008).
ShouldtheCircuitCourtandtheCourtofSpecialAppealsdecisionsholdinganddecision
beleftstanding,thestateofMDwillbeseenascondoningperjuryandelection
1
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
nullificationduringtheconductofanelectionandwillhaverenderedthelargestincidence
ofvoterfraudinthehistoryoftheUnitedStatesbyrenderingeveryvotecastinboth2008
and2012eithercriminalactionsofmisprisionofperjuryorastheftofgovernment
documentbyfalsepretextinordertosecurethehighestofficeinthelandbyanidentified
potentialusurper[1].Untiltheconstitutionaltermofart,naturalborncitizen,isexplicitly
addressedbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,aloopholeinthestateandfederal
electoralprocesswillcontinuetounderminetheveryfoundationofleaderselectioninthis
countryandservetodisenfranchisenotonlyMrs.FairandMrs.Miltenbergerfrom
representationinaConstitutionalRepublic,but,inaddition,everyactiveholderofavoter
franchiseinthestateofMDwhichisspecificdamageapartfromthatofthegeneralpublic
resultinginacatastrophicfailureoftheentireelectoralsystem.Activeholdersofvoter
franchisesaresetapartfromthegeneralpublic,whereasinactiveholdersofvoter
franchisesarenot.
VI. STATEMENTOFTHECASE
ThismotionforawritofcertiorariforFair,etalvWalker,etal,raisesobjectiontothe
manyerrorsinjudgmentonthepartoftheSBE,theMDSOSandtherulingsandopinions
byJudgeThomasFStansfieldandJudgeJ.Nazarianwhichresultedintheassessmentof
courtcoststotheplaintiffs,Mrs.TracyFairandMrs.MaryMiltenberger.ThecaseJudge
Stansfielddismissedisbasedongroundshehasnoauthoritytoclaimandusedadefective
sourcetojustifythedismissal.JudgeJ.Nazarianfollowedupwithanopinionwhich
concentratedonforcingafindingoflachesonthechallengewhichisstillchallengedbythe
plaintiffonitsmeritsasbeinganincorrectapplicationofthedefenserenderedforthesole
purposeshortcircuitingalegitimatechallengetoasuspectedineligiblecandidatethus
allowingthatpotentialusurpertonullifyaPresidentialelectionbymassivevoterfraud[2]
initiatedbycandidatefraud.
TheinitialpetitionforactionwasfiledinFairvObama,ComplaintforDeclaratory
JudgmentandInjunctiveRelief,onJanuary26,2012seekingrelieftoremovedefendant
2
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
BarackHusseinObama,IIfromtheMDballotforthe2012Presidentialelectionciting
ineligibilityperArticleII,Section1Clause5andnaturalborncitizen.Theinitialactionwas
thendecidedupononAugust17,2012.OnMarch9,2012Mrs.Fairsought,andobtaineda
letterfromtherepresentativeoftheStateBoardofElection,implicitlystatingthattheSBE
hadnointentionofremovingMr.Obamasnamefromtheballot[3].Thiswasfollowedby
anothercomplaint(AmendedComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentandInjunctiveRelief)
onMarch19,2012andanadditionalPlaintiffwasadded,aswellasadditionalStateofficers
aspartiesDefendantrelativetothisissueFair,etalvWalker,etal(April,2014).A
MotiontoDismiss,togetherwithsupportingMemorandumwasfiledonApril27,2012by
theState.AnoppositionofmotiontodismisswasfiledonMay15,2012.FinalJudgment
onFairvObamawasrenderedbyJudgeThomasStansfieldoftheCircuitCourtofCarroll
CountyonAugust27,2012.Itistheconsideredopinionoftheappellantsthatthisopinion
isntmerelyinerror,itisflatoutwrongconsideringtheissueattheheartofthematter
whichisPresidentialeligibilityandthePresidentialqualificationsclause.
Thisbriefisexhaustiveinpresentingthecaseforaspecificdefinitionofnaturalborn
citizenthattheCourtsaredeterminedtorejectwithoutjurisdictiontodoso.Thereisno
needtogoovertheSupremeCourtrulingsagainasthecasehasbeenmadethatMrs.Fair,
andagreatmanyotherchallengers(SeeexhibitDofAppendixpage23)tothepresenceof
Mr.ObamaintheofficeofthePresidency,holdafirmandreasonedopinionthatthe
definitionofNaturalBornCitizenisapersonbornwithintheboundariesandjurisdictionof
theUnitedStatestoUnitedStatescitizenparentsandthatthisholdingisfoundinseveral
USSupremeCourtcases[4].TheCourthasnocauseorjurisdictiontorejectoraffirmthis
interpretationanymorethanithascausetorejectorconfirmthealternativeinterpretation
ofoneoftheothereightdefinitionscurrentlyinusefornaturalborncitizen,whichholds
thatthistermofartisequivalenttoUScitizenwithnootherdegreesofrestriction.This
briefwasfiledinMay2013.Itwassufficienttosecureaprivatehearingwithathreejudge
panelinSeptemberof2013.AdecisionwasrenderedonthisbriefbytheCOSAanditwas
3
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
deniedonApril7,2014byJudgesWright,NazarianandArrieW.Davis(Retired,specially
assigned),theopinionisrenderedbyJudgeJ.Nazarian.Theopinioncentersontheclaimof
lachesandallotherargumentswereignored.Thisargumentisbuiltonthesecondamended
complaintservedMarch27,2012,notthefirstfilinginJanuaryof2012whichformally
alertedtheSBEtothesuspectedpresenceofanineligiblePresidentialcandidateinthe
election,whereallpreviousattemptstoalerttheseElectionsOfficerswereinperson.
AppellantsMotionforReconsiderationwasfiledwithconjunctionwithrequestfor
JudicialNoticefiledMay7,2014.MotionofRequestforJudicialNoticeandMotionfor
Reconsiderationdenied,May14,2014.
VII.STATEMENTOFFACTS
a. TheChallengeofObama
FromthebeginningoftheplaintiffseffortstoforcetheMDSOSanMDSBEto
acknowledgethattheelectoralprocess,asitiscurrentlyconstructedandastheelection
lawsarewritten,isfatallyflawedandblindtoineligiblecandidatesfortheOfficeofthe
Presidency,Mrs.FairandMrs.Miltenbergerhavebeenactivelystonewalledbythevery
stateactorswhoaretaskedwithkeepingineligible/unqualifiedcandidatesofftheballotsand
outoftheelectoralsysteminthefirstplace.Mrs.FairbeganhereffortsonDec.7,2011
andwasmetwithoverthostilitybystategovernmentofficialswhodidnotwanttohearthat
theirsystemwasflawedorthatacandidatetheyheldpoliticalbiasforwasineligible.Mrs.
FairrepeatedlystatedaneligibilitystandardthatifappliedtoMr.Obamaandother
PresidentialcandidateswouldhaveresultedintheirdisqualificationperMarylandelection
lawandremovaloftheirnamesfromthePrimaryBallot.Mrs.Fairwastoldrepeatedlythat
theMDSOSwasonlyrequiredtocertifythenameofthePresidentialcandidates,viamedia
sourcesperELSec.8502.ShewasalsotoldthatbyMarylandElectionLawno
PresidentialCandidatewasrequiredtofileacertificateofcandidacywiththeSBE.
Anindividualmaybecomeacandidateforapublicofficeonlyiftheindividualsatisfies
thequalificationsforthatofficeestablishedbylaw
4
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
ItisclearthattheelectionlawsofMarylandaddresstheconditionofPresidential
disqualification/ineligibilityasthetermspertaintogenericcandidates.ELTitle5,subtitle
6Sec.5601statesthat
Thenameofacandidateshallremainontheballotandbesubmittedtothevotersata
primaryelectionif:(ii)(thecandidate)hasnotbecomedisqualified,andthatfactis
knowntotheapplicableboardbythedeadlineprescribedinSec.5504(b)ofthistitle.
(Emphasismine)

TheprocessofdeterminingwhetherornotaPresidentialcandidateisqualifiedornotis
unclear.However,severalotherlawsundertheElectionLawArticlealsostatethata
candidatemustbequalifiedincluding,5705,51203,6206,6208,16401,8502and
9210(A69).Additionally,underELSec.5303(a)thecandidatemustcontacteitherthe
SBEortheMDSOStoindicatethathe/shewishesforhis/hernametobeplacedonthe
PrimaryBallotnolaterthan70daysbeforethePrimaryelection,whichwasheldonApril
3,2012.ByELSec.5502,ifacandidatewishestowithdrawhe/shemustdosowithin10
daysafterthefilingdateestablishedbyELSec.5303.Thelastdateoffilingviaa
certificateofcandidacyisJan.24,2012andthelastdateforacertificateofwithdrawalis
Feb.2,2012or60daysbeforethePrimaryelection.ItisneverstatedintheMotionto
DismissfiledbytheMDSBEwhenthenameofthePresidentialcandidate,Mr.Obama,was
certifiedon.However,perthewebsitefortheSecretaryofState,itisshownthatMr.
ObamafiledRegular01/10/12.[i]
Mrs.FairbeganherchallengeonDec.7,2011,bycontactingtheSBEandtheMDSOS
regardingObamasineligibility.BoththeMDSOSandtheSBEknewthatMr.Obamawas
underacontroversyandcertifiedhisnameunderELSec.8502onJan.10,2012.His
eligibilitycontroversywaswelldocumentedbythistime[ii]byCNN,HuffingtonPostand
TheWashingtonPost,tonameafew.Thatthesesitesdismissedthecontroversyis
irrelevant,theyallacknowledgedthatitexisted.ForthepurposesofSec.8502,hadMr.
Obamabeenconvictedofburglaryoranyotherfelony,hisnamewouldhavebeeninthe
5
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
mediaandthushewouldhavequalifiedforplacementontheMarylandPrimaryBallotunder
thesolediscretionoftheSecretaryofState.Moreover,mediaaroundtheworldhasbeen
callingObamaKenyanBornforoveradecadenow(ExhibitsA111A1121)
Further,shewantedtoknowtheprocessbywhichaPresidentialcandidatehadhis/hername
placedontheballotandbywhichdocumentsthisplacementwasmanaged.Herquestions
wereansweredwithacontinuousreiterationofthewordingofELSec.8502.Mrs.Fair
beganherdemandforactionwithalawsuitonJan.26,2012,whichfallswithinthewindow
foracandidatetowithdrawfromtheracefortheofficehe/sheseeks.Itisirrelevantifthis
actionwasnotfollowedthrough,itwasfiledandthedateispertinenttoshowduediligence.
PertheMotiontoDismisstheSBEwaswellawareofthisfiling[iii].However,sincethe
Presidentialcandidatesarenotrequiredtofileacertificateofcandidacy,theyarealso
deniedacertificateofwithdrawalunderELSec.5502.
TheelectionlawthatboththeMDSOSandSBEciteasjustificationforignoringthefull
federalemploymentcriteriafoundintheConstitutionisELSec.8502(c)(2),
TheSecretaryofStateshallcertifythenameofapresidentialcandidateontheballotwhen
theSecretaryhasdetermined,intheSecretaryssolediscretionandconsistentwithparty
rules,thatthecandidatescandidacyisgenerallyadvocatedorrecognizedinthenewsmedia
throughouttheUnitedStatesorinMaryland
Intheplaintiffsrequestforactionlawsuit,theychargethatrelianceonthissectionof
Marylandelectionlawisinvalidandfurtherrequestedachangeintheelectionprocessby
whichaseparateform,notacertificateofcandidacy,beimplementedtoaddressthefull
PresidentialqualificationsClausegovernedbytheSupremacyClause.Thisdemandwas
rejectedinaformalletteronMarch9,2012byarepresentativeoftheMarylandState
BoardofElections,Mr.JaredDeMarinis.Mrs.Fairrespondedwithinthetendaywindow
mandatedbythejudicialreviewprocessELSec.12202andfiledheramendeddemandfor
actiononMarch19,2012.Despitebeingunderactivechallengebytheplaintiffs,Mr.
Obamawasallowedtocontinuethroughtheelectionprocesswithoutquestionbythe
oversightentitiesandwasallowedaccesstotheGeneralElectionballotonNov.6,2012.
6
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
TheStateGovernmentofMarylandissuesadditionalcertificateswithacandidateunder
activechallengebytheholderofavoterfranchisewithconcernforspecialdamagedoneto
hervoteandtheelectionprocess.Mr.ObamawasallowedtocertifyhisPresidential
ElectorsfortheElectoralCollegeProcess,withoutquestion,whichoccurred
midNovemberthroughDec.17,2012.ByDec.11,2012allstatesmustmakefinal
decisionsinanycontroversiesovertheappointmentoftheirelectorsatleastsixdays
beforethemeetingoftheElectorsonDec.17,2012.Noactionwastakentomakesurethat
anidentifiedineligiblecandidate,underactivechallengebyMrs.FairandMrs.
Miltenberger,waspreventedfromaccesstotheElectoralCollegeprocess.These
PresidentialElectorsthengeneratedaCertificateofAscertainmentandaCertificateof
VoteandsentthesedocumentsandtheirvotestotheUSCongressforcount.OnDec.26,
2012allvotesfromtheElectoralCollegesofalltheStatesaretobereceivedbythe
PresidentoftheSenate.Again,thiswasallowedtohappenbythestateactorsofMaryland,
knowingfullwellthatMr.Obamawasunderactivechallengebytheplaintiffs.OnJan.6,
2013,CongressandtheSenatebothmeetinajointsessiontocounttheElectoralCollege
votes,presidedoverbytheVicePresident,JoeBiden,asPresidentoftheSenate.Votesare
talliedandthereelectionofMr.Obamaisconfirmed,allwhileunderactivechallengeby
theplaintiffs.OnJan.20,2013,Mr.ObamaissworninbyChiefJusticeRobertstothe
OfficeofthePresident,whileunderactivechallengebytheplaintiffsandnothingissaidto
preventit[iv].
b. TIMINGOFTHELAWSUIT
Mrs.FairassertssubjectmatterjurisdictionpursuanttoMarylandCodesection12202of
theElectionLawArticle,whichprovides,inrelevantpart:
a)ifnoothertimelyandadequateremedyisprovidedbythisarticle,aregisteredvoter
mayseekjudicialrelieffromanyactoromissionrelatingtoanelection,whetheror
nottheelectionhasbeenheld,onthegroundsthattheactoromission:(1)is
inconsistentwiththisarticleorotherlawapplicabletotheelectionsprocessand(2)
maychangeorhaschangedtheoutcomeoftheelection[v].(Emphasismine)

7
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
In2011,theplaintiffsbegantheireffortstoalerttheSOSandtheSBEtothepresenceofa
candidatesheconsideredineligible/unentitledforplacementonthePrimaryballotof
2012.Mr.ObamawascertifiedonJan.10,2012[vi].
Theystatedaclearstandardbywhicheligibilitywastobejudgedandpresentedher
documentaryevidencetotheElectionsOfficersofMarylandwithjurisdictionoverthe
electoralprocess.Shedemandedthatthecandidatesnamebeprohibitedfromplacementon
theballotandthattheelectionprocessbealteredtofixafatalflaw.Theplaintiffsspenta
considerableamountoftimeprotestingthepotentialcertificationandthenactual
certificationofMr.BarackObamasname,aPresidentialcandidatein2012,forplacement
ontheprimaryballot.ShedemandedaletterdetailingwhytheSBEwouldnotkeepthename
ofacandidate,sheconsideredineligible,offtheballotandwasgivenaletterbyMr.Jared
DeMarinis,whichsheconsidersanofficialdismissalofherrequestforactiononMarch9,
2012.
PerELSec.12202(b)(1),theplaintiffsweregiven10daystoanswertherejectionfor
therequestforactionandonMarch19,2012,theplaintiffsfiledtheiramendedlawsuit.
Mrs.FairandMrs.MiltenbergercouldhavechosenthealternativerouteprovidedbyEL
Sec.12202(b)(2)andfiledimmediatelyaftertheelectionresultswerecertified,butthat
wouldhavemeantthattoavoidmakingtheirvoteanactofmisprisionofperjury,both
plaintiffswouldhavehadtovoluntarilypurgedtheirvotesandnotvoted.Clearly,aclassic
caseofcatch22.
ELSec.12202stipulatesthatanomissioninconsistentwithotherlawmustoccur
totriggerthejudicialreview.Infact,twotriggerswereengagedforSec.12202(a):1)the
omissionofthefederalemploymentcriteriafoundinArticleII,Section1,Clause5and2)
theomissionofacertificateofcandidacywhichmandatesthattheStateBoardestablishthat
thePresidentialcandidateswerequalifiedforaccesstothePrimaryballotbylaw
(PresidentialqualificationsclauseandSupremacyClause).ElSec.8502wasalteredin
1969andwasformerlyknownasArticle33,Sec.122(a)(1)[vii].
8
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
TheSBErefusedtodotheirjobwithrespecttofederalcandidatesasdidtheSecretaryof
State,byonlycertifyingthenameofthePresidentialcandidatesbymediasources,even
thoughtherewasacandidateunderchallengeandwithcontroversyconcerninghisname
whichalsowasestablishedbymediasources[viii].(ExhibitB,A22)
TheothercomponentofELSection12202(a)(2)involvestheoutcomeoftheelectionhad
thePresidentialqualificationsClausebeenappliedtothecandidateunderchallenge,Mr.
Obama.Thissectiondoesnotspecifyaparticularelection.Inastate/federalelectionthere
arethreeelectionswhichcovertheentireelectioncycle.Hadthedefendantsdonetheirjob
andaddressedthefatalflawintheelectoralprocessbyinvestigatingthePresidential
qualificationsClauseasitpertainedtoMr.Obama,itisunlikelythatthePrimaryElection
wouldhavechangedbecausethevotescastwouldhavebeenlegal[ix]andspecificforMr.
Obama,thoughnotlegitimate[x].ItisunlikelythattheGeneralElectionwouldhavechanged
becauseagainthevotesforthiscandidatehadtheSOSandtheSBEinsistedonplacinghis
nameontheballotunderchallengewouldhavebeenlegalandspecific,butalsowouldhave
beenillegitimatebythecriminalactionsinvolved.Theelectionthatwouldhavechangedwas
theElectoralCollegevote.AcandidateofquestionableeligibilitybythePresidential
qualificationsClausecouldnotcertifyanyPresidentialelectortocastvotesinthatprocess
onhisbehalfuponthecompletionofthefinalcanvassofpopularvotesintheGeneral
Election.Thatcertificationwouldbeillegitimateandwouldrendereveryvoteinthe
ElectoralCollegeillegitimateatbest,oracriminalactofmisprisionofperjuryhadthe
loopholebeenexposedbythattime.Thus,thiselectionwouldhavechangedhadthe
omissionofthePresidentialqualificationsnotoccurred.
c. SBEProceduresforCandidateFilingsforaccesstoPrimaryBallot
TheSBEreliesheavilyonthecertificationofnamebytheMDSOSintheirown
certificationofcandidatetothelocalboards.IfanineligiblecandidategetspasttheMD
SOS,he/shewillbeunchallengedfortherestoftheelectionbytheoversightstateactors.
9
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
TheSBEstatesthefollowingqualificationsforfilingcandidacyforPresidentand
VicePresidentontheirwebsite:naturalborncitizenand14yearsaresidentwithinthe
UnitedStates.[xi]AgainpertheSBEwebsiteitisstatedthatthePresidentialandVice
Presidentialcandidatesmustfilewiththestate[xii],butdonotofferanydocumentorform
bywhichthefilingisaccomplished.ItisclearthattheSBEdesiresasmoothandefficient
procedureforacceptingcandidacyfilingsinordertoaccommodateelectiontimelines
imposedbystatute.ItisnotunexpectedthattheSBEwouldavoidanysortofvetting
processiftheycouldhelpit.However,bynotrequiringacertificateofcandidacyandthus
dispensingwithMarylandElectionlawassociatedwithqualificationswhicharemandatedif
acertificateofcandidacyisfiled,theSBEhasopenedupaloopholebywhicheligibleand
ineligible/unqualifiedcandidatesmayentertheelectionprocesswithoutchallengeand
understealthconditions.ThetimelinesforfilinginaPrimaryandGeneralelectionareboth
governedbyELSec.5303(a)(1)andELSec.5502.Thesedeadlinesareunalterable[xiii]
forthepurposeoffiling,butarenotapplicableforthepurposeofchallengingacandidates
eligibility.AfterthedeadlineforwithdrawalhaspassedtheSBEistaskedwithballot
preparationandthisisalsogovernedbystatuteELSec.9202(a)requiresthattheSBE
certifythecontentandarrangementoftheballots.
Unfortunately,ifthecertificationisbasedonfalsedata,thecertificationitselfbecomesa
falsetokeninfraud,andiftheSBEknowsthatthecandidateplacedontheballotisunder
activechallenge,theplacementofthatpotentiallyineligiblecandidateisnolongerdone
underofficialimmunity,butisnowconductedunderthepersonaldiscretionoftheSBEand
isoutsidetheirjurisdiction.UnderELSec.9207(a)(1)thecertificationmustbe
completed50daysbeforeaprimaryelection,oronFeb.13,2012.Onceagain,the
plaintiffsfirstdemandedthatactionbetakentopreventtheplacementofMr.Obamasname
onthePrimaryballotonDec.7,2011.TheSBEknewtherewasachallengeanda
controversyandstillputMr.Obamasnamewithoutinvestigationastothe
PresidentialqualificationsClauseasdemandedbytheplaintiffs,undertheirownpersonal
10
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
discretionandoutsideofofficialimmunity.UnderELSec.9207(c),nolaterthan48
hoursofthecertification,orFeb.15,2012thetainted/defectiveballotswererequiredtobe
deliveredtoeachlocalboardwithouttheirknowledgeofthecontroversy,omissionofthe
PresidentialqualificationsClauseortheknowledgethateventhenameofMr.Obamawas
beingchallengedandhadbeencertifiedbymediasources,perELSec.8502,under
challengebytheplaintiffsandtheMDSOShadnoproofthatMr.Obamasnamewasas
claimed.Theexistenceofabirthcertificatewasirrelevant,becauseliketheuseofmedia
sourcestoverifyacandidatesname,abirthcertificateisnotsanctionedbytheUS
SupremeCourtassuitabledocuments/sourcestoaffirmeligibility.NeithertheSBEnorthe
MDSOShaveauthority/jurisdictiontosaywhatshallbetheextentofcertificationwith
respecttothePresidentialqualificationsclauseorwhatdocuments/sourcesshallbe
appropriatefordeterminationofthosequalifications.
Everydeadlinewasmetperstatute,andeverycertificationwasfalseperthechallenge
lodgedonDec.7,2011andcontinueduntiltheletterofrefusaltotakeactionwasissuedon
March9,2011therebyengagingjudicialreviewundertheauthorityofELSec.12202.
ItisnotwithoutsomeappreciationfortheburdenthattheSBEcarrieswithrespecttoballot
preparationanddistribution,however,thiswasadebacleoftheirownmakingbecausethey
refusedtohonorthefullqualificationsunderArticleII,Section1Clause5,theSupremacy
Clauseandthechallengelodgedbyanactiveholderofavoterfranchisewithspecial
concernforparticulardamagetohervoteandtheelectoralprocess.TheSBEandSOSareat
libertytoassumefullcompliancewiththefederalemploymentcriteriabyanycandidate
onlyuntilachallengetoeligibilityislodgedbyeitheravoterwithspecialconcern,ora
rivalcandidate,orboth.Itisinthestatesinteresttodenyallineligiblecandidatesany
placementonthethreeballotsinvolvedinaPresidentialelection,Primary,General,and
ElectoralCollege.
InthecaseofMr.Obama,hadtheSBEandSOSrealizedthatthiscandidatewasclaiming
jurisdictiontodefinetheConstitutionaltermofartknownasnaturalborncitizenwithout
11
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
authoritytodoso,andthattheythemselvesheldsignificantpoliticalbiastoallowhima
passthroughtothesystemviaaninsistencethatELSec.8502heldprecedentoverthe
SupremacyClause,theywouldhavelikelychangedboththeGeneralandtheElectoral
Collegeelectionsbecausebythattimethenationwouldhavecometounderstandthatno
oneknowswhatnaturalborncitizenis,andnoonecansaywhichsourcesofinformationor
documentsareneededtoaffirmeligibility,including,butnotlimitedthecandidatesname.
TheelectionwouldhavebeenhaltedtodeterminethestandardforNBCanddependingon
thestandarddeterminedbySCOTUSadifferentpoliticianwouldnowbeoccupyingthe
WhiteHouse[xiv].Assuch,Marylandanditsfatallyflawedandblindelectoralprocess,its
biasedoversightentitiesandallotherstatesofthelike,havecooperatedinformally,to
placeapotentialusurperinofficewhohasactivelyruinedthelivesandcareersofmilitary
officers,hasplacedthisnationinconsiderabledangerforeconomicimplosionandhas
activelyviolatedtheseparationofpowersbyabuseofexecutiveordertomanipulatelawsor
toeffectivelynullifylawsforpoliticalgain.Whenausurperisputinofficethedirect
damagetotheplaintiffscomeswitheverylawhe/sheillegallysignsintolaw,everytreaty
falselynegotiatedandeverywarhe/shedecidestoputthiscountryatriskforintermsof
treasureandthebloodofcitizensbothmilitaryandasaconsequenceofterrorism.
Inlightofthis,theinconvenienceofadocumentreviewbeforeaPrimaryelectionwould
seemtrivial.ThatisiftheSBEandSOSknewwhatstandardsofeligibilitytoapplyandwhat
documentstoreview.Rightnow,theydonot,andhavenojurisdictiontoclaimotherwise.

VIII. STATEMENTOFSTANDARDOFREVIEW
Theallegationsofthecomplaintaretobetakenastrue,andthecourtistodetermine
whether,underanytheory,theallegationsaresufficienttostateacauseofactionin
accordancewithstateandfederalstatute.
12
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
TheappropriatestandardofreviewoveraMarylandCourtofSpecialAppealsdismissalofa
complaintfiledingoodfaithwiththecircuitcourtsisdenovo.
IX.ARGUMENT
a. ELSec.8502doesnotholdprecedentoverArticleII,Section1,Clause5ina
PresidentialElection
AsgatekeeperstotheMarylandelectionprocess,boththeMarylandSOSandtheSBEare
responsibleforwhohasaccesstothePrimaryballotandtheeligibilityofPresidential
candidatesisabsolutelytheirdutytodeterminewhenchallengedunderlawaselections
officials.Thatotherstatesemploythesamemethodofballotaccessisirrelevant,weare
onlyconcernedwithMarylandandwhetherornotitsmethodofballotaccess
catastrophicallyfailstokeepineligiblecandidatesofftheballotandoutoftheelectiondue
toalreadymentioneddefects[xv].
Thereisnoexplicitexemptionfromfederallaw(ArticleII,Section1,Clause5,alsoknown
asthePresidentialqualificationsClause)foundinMarylandelectionlaw.Thesefederal
employmentcriteriaincludename,age,parentage,birthlocationandUScitizenshipaswell
asparentalcitizenship[xvi].TheyarelawandarenonnegotiablebytheSupremacyClause.
NeithertheMDSOS,northeSBEhaveanyprofessionaldiscretiontoignorethem.
FreevBland,369US663(1962)providesthefollowingguidanceinthismatter:
The relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict
with a valid federal law, for the Framers of our Constitution provided that the federal law
mustprevail.
InaPresidentialelectioncycle,theemploymentcriteriaareknownbutare
undetermined.Thisinnowayimpliesflexibilityonthepartoftheelectionofficers
chargedwithoversightandmanagementoftheelectioncycleinMaryland.Theelectionlaw
Sec.8502onlydealswiththenameofthecandidate.NeithertheSOS,northeSBEcan
provethenameofMr.Obamaandhavethuscertifiedhimbytheirownpersonaldiscretion
perthatsectionandthusultravires.BasedontheirMotiontoDismissandsubsequent
actions,boththeSBEandtheSOShaveactedtoconcealthefactthataPresidential
13
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
candidateunderchallengewasallowedaccesstothePrimary,GeneralandElectoral
Collegeballotswithoutquestionandthustheyarebothguiltyofmisprisionofperjury
becausetheyhavewithheldmaterialfactsfromallMarylandholdersofvoterfranchises.
Thusthecertificationofthenameofthecandidatetothelocalboards,thecertification
ofelectionorfinalcanvassoftheGeneralElection,thecertificationofAscertainmentand
thecertificationofVote,alongwithanyothercertificationparticulartotheelectoral
processasitisunderMarylandstatelaw,arefalseandthistriggersseveralelectionlaws.
UnderELSec.9204theuniformityoftheballotiseffectedasineligiblecandidatesarenot
equivalenttoeligiblecandidates.UnderEL16201(a)(7)apersonmaynotengagein
conductthatresultsintheabridgmentoftherightofanycitizenoftheUnitedStatesto
voteThissubsectionoftheELSec.16201listsrace,colorordisability,butimplies
foranyreasonincludingdeception,theunderminingofthevoteslegitimacy,andthe
corruptionand/ornullificationoftheelectionduetothepresenceofanineligible
candidate.ELSec.8502,asitiswrittenforPresidentialcandidates,containsnofilterby
whichtostopineligiblecandidatesfromhavingtheirnamescertifiedperthesolediscretion
oftheSecretaryofStatewhoactivelypicksandchooseswhatmediasourcestopay
attentiontoandwhichtoignoreaspoliticallyinconvenient.Naturalborncitizenis
obviouslyheldbyboththeSBEandtheSOSasequivalenttoUSCitizen.Assuch,they
cannotkeepanaturalizedcitizenfromhavinghis/hernamecertifiedpermediasourcesnot
sanctionedbySCOTUSandrunningforPresidentwithoutchallengebythecertifying
authorities.
Sincethecandidatesnameiscertifiedwithoutinvestigationoraffirmingdocumentation,
thepresenceofanunchallengedineligiblecandidatetriggersELSec.16501(a)(b)&(c)
whichhasapenaltyforperjurywithrespecttoanoathoraffirmationandthetacit
affirmationthattheSOSclaimsunderELSec.8502iscertainlyfalseifhecannotproveit
viadocumentationormediasources.ThisinturnmakesthecertificationbytheSBEtothe
localboardsanotherfalsecertification.Withthediscontinueduseofthecertificatefor
14
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
candidacyonlyELSec.16501(a)iscircumventedbythecandidateforPresidentand
VicePresident,thereststandsandisapplicabletothecertificationofname.UnderELSec.
16601(a)(1)(2)and(b)areallapplicableingivingafalsereportbyotherelection
officialwillfullyandknowingly,whichunderthecurrentcircumstanceshappenedinthe
election2012.UnderELSec.16901(a)(2)therecanbearguedareciprocallawandthus
apersonmaynotfalselyorfraudulentlyfileorsuppressacertificationofnominationthat
hasbeenfraudulentlyfiled.Inthecaseofanineligiblecandidatethecertificationof
nominationisntworththepaperitsprintedon.
StorervBrown,415US724,415US730(1974),asserts
asapracticalmatter,theremustbeasubstantialregulationofelectionsiftheyaretobe
fairandhonestandifsomesortoforder,ratherthanchaos,istoaccompanythedemocratic
process.
CandidateeligibilitycannotbeignoredwithrespecttoArticleII,Section1Clause5.The
corruptionandnullificationoftheelectionof2012isfullyrevealedifthestandardfor
naturalborncitizenisheldtobejussoliandjussanguinisinsteadofequivalenttoUS
Citizen.Soarethefatalflawsintheprocessandmanagementofthe2012election.
AsstatedinMcInnishvBennett(2014)
between the November General Election and the casting of electoral votes in
midDecember, a state, if it chooses, is at liberty to resolve any controversy or contest in
regard to the selection of its electors, if done at least six days before the electors meet and
give their votes. 3 USC Sections 5 & 7. Thus, under federal law, the states are empowered
to resolve challenges to the validity of electors, and by implication the candidates to whom
theyarepledged
Mr.ObamawaslegitimatelychallengedonDec.7,2011andwasthereaftercontinually
challengedbydeedaswellaslawsuitbytheplaintiffs.
PerAndersonvCelebrezze,460US780(1983)[xvii]thebalanceofinterestsmustbe
consideredforallpartiesinvolved[xviii].TheSupremeCourthaslongrecognizedthat,
15
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
therightsofvotersandtherightsofcandidatesdonotlendthemselvestoneatseparation
lawsthataffectcandidatesalwayshaveatleastsometheoretical,correlativeeffecton
voters.[xix]
And,
inthecontextofaPresidentialelection,stateimposedrestrictionsimplicateauniquely
importantnationalinterest.ForthePresidentandtheVicePresidentoftheUnitedStates
aretheonlyelectedofficialswhorepresentallthevotersintheNation.Moreover,the
impactofthevotescastineachStateisaffectedbythevotescastforthevariouscandidates
inotherStates.Thus,inaPresidentialelection,aStatesenforcementofmorestringent
ballotaccessrequirements,includingfilingdeadlines,hasanimpactbeyonditsown
borders.Similarly,theStatehasalessimportantinterestinregulatingPresidential
electionsthanstatewideorlocalelections,becausetheoutcomeoftheformerwillbe
largelydeterminedbyvotersbeyondtheStatesboundaries.ThisCourt,strikingdowna
statestatuteundulyrestrictingthechoicesmadebyamajorpartysPresidentialnominating
convention,observedthatsuchconventionsservedthepervasivenationalinterestinthe
selectionofcandidatesfornationaloffice,andthisnationalinterestisgreaterthanany
interestofanindividualState.[xx]
Inthiscasethestateregulationissopermissiveaswritten,ratherthanmorerestrictiveas
indicatedintheaboveSCOTUSruling,thatwhencombinedwiththeloopholeforthe
federalemploymentcriteria,resultsinabsolutelynorestrictionsatalloverwhomayapply
andrunforPresidentialoffice,includingforeigndiplomatsandaliens[xxi]aslongastheir
namesarementionedinthemedia.Ifyoudontknowwhatstandardofeligibilitytouseand
areonlyinterestedinverifyingacandidatesnameviamediasources,thenanyonewithan
articleinhandcanapplyforinclusionontheMarylandPrimaryBallotandrunfor
President.Nootherrestrictions,includingpartyaffiliationisimportantunderSection
8502,otherthanthenameofthecandidateandtheSOSiseffectivelyshutdownasanysort
ofmitigatingauthorityandifhehastocertifythenameofallapplicantstotheprocess
regardlessofeligibility,thensotoodoestheSBE[xxii].ThementionofPartyrulesand
bylawsissuperfluous.ItmeansnothingwhenitisunderstoodthattheMajorPartiesdonot
vettheirPresidentialcandidates.
16
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Finally,WilliamsvRhodes,393Us23,393US3031,inwhichthehighCourtexplainsthe
interwovenstrandsoflibertybyrestrictionsplacedonballotaccess:
inthepresentsituation,thestatelawsplaceburdensontwodifferent,althoughoverlapping,
kindsofrightstherightofindividualstoassociatefortheadvancementofpolitical
beliefsandtherightofqualifiedvoters,regardlessoftheirpoliticalpersuasion,tocasttheir
voteseffectively.Bothoftheserights,ofcourse,rankamongourmostpreciousfreedoms.
Theholdersofavoterfranchisehaveaspecialconcernfortheeffectivenessoftheirvote.A
votecannotbesaidtobecastwithinformedconsentifthevoterisbeingliedtobythestate
actorsmanagingtheelectoralprocess,thestatepoliticalpartyandthecandidate
him/herself.Deceitwithrespecttoqualificationsisparticularlyegregious.Thenagain
politicallyingisundoubtedlyprotectedasfreespeech[xxiii].
Thevotersassume,bytheuseofthewordcertify,thatthecandidateisfullyqualifiedtorun
fortheofficetheyseekandholdit.ELSec.8502isinvalidinthatregardanddoes
nothingtomaintaintheintegrityoftheprocessorprovidesecurityagainstineligible
candidates,ashasbeendemonstratedinfullbythepresenceofineligiblecandidatesonthe
ballot:Mr.Obama,Mr.RomneyandMr.Santorum[xxiv].
b. CauseforActionunderELSec.12202
FederalStatute163501oftheDistrictofColumbia,presentstheunderlyinglegal
argument[xxv]thatnopersonmayusurpapublicofficeoftheUnitedStates.Newmanv
UnitedStatesexRel.Frizzell,238US537(1915)expandedthistoincludeallpublic
officers[xxvi].RhodesvMacDonald,670F.Supp.2d1363,1377(M.D.Ga.2009)notes
that,
ifthePresidentwereelectedtotheofficebyknowinglyandfraudulentlyconcealing
evidenceofhisconstitutionaldisqualifications,then[the]mechanism[of
impeachment][xxvii]existsforremovinghimfromoffice
andisabsolutelywrong.Impeachmentdoesnotexistforausurper.Quitesimplyfederallaw
wasnotinterpretedorfollowedwithrespecttotheUnitedStatesCodeandtheomission
ofthePresidentialqualificationsclauseandthesubsequentderelictionofdutyto
17
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
determinethestandardsofnaturalborncitizenandthedocumentsthataresuitablefor
affirmationoftheclaimsofeligibilityresultinthefollowingviolationsatthefederallevel
bythecertifyingauthoritiesandthepresidentialcandidatemisrepresentinghiseligibility.
18USCChapter47FraudandFalseStatementsisengaged.Section1001Statementsor
entriesgenerallyfullyapplytoMr.Obamaduringhisreelectionin2012asamemberof
theexecutivebranchofGovernmentwhoknowinglyandwillfully:1)falsifies,conceals,
orcoversupbyanytrick,schemeordeviceamaterialfactInthiscase,thefactisthathe
cannotclaimthetraditionalstandardofnaturalborncitizenstatusandhehasnodocument
bywhichtosupportsuchaclaim.Thereisafineandjailtime,ofnotmorethan5years
underthistitle.Thetrickinthisinstanceisthepostingofabirthcertificatetothenational
mediaandonaGovernmentwebsite,andnottoanyElectionsOfficial,inanefforttousea
falsetokentosupporthisclaimofname,age,birthlocation,parentageandUScitizenship
withouthavingtheauthoritytodoso.AbirthcertificateisnotrecognizedbySCOTUSasa
documentrelevanttothepartialestablishmentofthePresidentialqualificationsClauseand
noone,belowSCOTUS,hasthejurisdictionorauthoritytosaythatitdoesasthisisa
Constitutionalmatter.Toclaimjurisdiction/authoritytodictatethedefinitionof
naturalborncitizen,thePresidentialqualificationsClauseand/orthedocumentation
neededtosubstantiatetheclaimstoeligibility,istocommitasignificantusurptationof
uniquejudicialpowerfromSCOTUS.
18USCChapter47,USCodeSection1002Possessionoffalsepaperstodefraudthe
UnitedStates[xxviii]providesafederalcrimecommitteddirectlybyboththeSOSandthe
certifyingauthoritiesintheSBE.Thefalsecertificationofthenameofasuspected
ineligiblecandidateunderactivechallengeofqualificationsperthe
PresidentialqualificationsClauseisaccompaniedbyafineandnomorethanfiveyearsin
jailorboth.
18USCChapter47,USCodeSection1018Officialcertificatesorwritingsspecifically
addressesfalsecertificationsbyapublicofficerorotherpersonauthorizedbyanylaw
18
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
(MarylandElectionLaw)oftheUnitedStatestomakeorgiveacertificateorother
writing[xxix]Theconditionoflacheswasnotcreatedbytheplaintiffsbutbytherefusal
oftheSBEandtheSOStodotheirjobsinafederalelectionandinsteadchose,bytheir
personaldiscretions,todelaytheinvestigationofasuspectedineligiblecandidatewell
beforehewascertified.Theholderofavoterfranchisewithspecialdamage[xxx]orthreat
ofspecialdamage,shouldnothavetobringalawsuitagainsttheverypublicofficerswho
aretaskedwith,underELsection1101,Subtitle2(7)(8),thepreventionoffraudand
corruptionandprosecutingofanyoffenseswhichmaybeidentifiedoroccur,including,
butnotlimitedto,perjury,misprisionofperjuryandgovernmentdocument/votetheftby
falsepretextanddeception[xxxi].ELSec.16301(a)stipulatesthatanelectionofficial
maynotwillfullyneglectofficialdutiesorengageincorruptorfraudulentactsinthe
performanceofhis/herdutieswithrespecttoELSec.1101,ELSec.16302(tampering
withelectionrecordsbyforcingthenameofanineligiblecandidateunderchallengetobe
placedontheballot),ELSec.16601(falsereports)andotherelectionandcriminallaw.
BythewordingofELSec.8502[xxxii],theMarylandSOSassumespersonalresponsibility
fortheinjectionofunqualifiedcandidatesintotheelectoralprocessinviolationof
Marylandcriminallawinwhichhe/sheisnowapartytoabettingtheftofgovernment
documents(vote/ballot)byanineligiblecandidatewithintenttodefraudnotonlythevoters
oftheStateofMaryland,buttheentireStateofMaryland.(Sec.1401.Proofof
IntentFraud,TheftandrelatedCrimes[xxxiii]).
Itisthepresenceofachallengetotheeligibilityofthecandidate,whetherverbalorwritten,
thatabsolutelychangesthegroundrulesfortheelection.
c.RightofChallengeasderivativeofbothFreeSpeechandRighttoVote
Thestatusquo[xxxiv]ofSec.8502mustnotbeseentobesupportingthecriminalactivity
ofperjury,andthefalsecertification[xxxv]ofacandidateunderchallengemaybe
consideredacriminalactivityunderbothfederalandMarylandcriminallaw.Theextentof
theseverityoffalsecertificationisnotfortheplaintiffstodetermine.Thatislefttothe
MDAttorneyGeneral.
19
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
UnitedStatesvCaroleneProductsCo.,304US144(1938):therighttoparticipate
inthepoliticalprocessispreservativeofallotherrights,libertiesandopportunities.The
opinionofJusticeWilliamDouglas,inBeauharnaisvIllinois,342US250,287
(1952)[xxxvi]supportstheconceptofpoliticalchallengeasacomponentofliberty,
TheframersoftheConstitutionknewhumannatureaswellaswedo.Theytoohadlivedin
dangerousdaystheytooknewthesuffocatinginfluenceoforthodoxyandstandardized
thought.Theyweighedthecompulsionsforrestrainedspeechandthoughtagainsttheabuses
ofliberty.Theychoseliberty.
Everyholderofavoterfranchisewithconcernfordamageparticulartothemselves,whether
itbesharedbyallothervotersorthegeneralpublic,hasstandingtochallengeineligible
candidatesduringastatemanagedelectionasarightequaltotherighttovoteandfree
speech,whichcannotbedisenfranchised.Activeholdersofvoterfranchisesaresetapart
fromthegeneralpublic,whereasinactiveholdersofvoterfranchisesarenot.
Ifpoliticalliesareconsideredfreespeechforpoliticians,andtheirsupportersandproxies,
thentheonlydefenseavoterhasischallengeasaformofpolicingfalsestatementsmade
bycandidatesaboutthemselvesortheirrivals[xxxvii].Thevote,asfreespeech,isan
expressionofthechoiceorpreferenceoftheholderofavoterfranchiseforacandidateor
principlepresentedtotheminanelection.Therighttovoteforaneligible/legitimate
candidateisarightaggressivelyguardedbythepeople,butasareciprocalorderivative
function,therighttovotebecomestherighttochallengeinthepresenceofpoliticallies
andcandidatefraud.Votershavetherighttodenyunsuitable,paranoid,criminaland
psychoticcandidatesaccesstotheballotonthegroundsofcommonsenseand
selfpreservation.Thatdenialcomesintheformofavote,orachallenge.ByELSec.9204
(c)inaprimaryelection
thevotingsystemshallbeconfiguredtopermitthevotertovoteonlyforthe
candidatesforwhichthevoterisentitledtovote.
VotersarenotentitledtovoteforcriminalperjurersasPresidentialcandidates.Not
knowingifthecandidateiseligibleandbywhatstandardinjectsinstabilityintothesystem
20
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
andservestonullifythevotealongwithcriminalizingit.Todenyavotertherightto
challengeistodisenfranchisefreespeechandtoabrogatetheinformedconsentofothers
byplacingasuspectedineligiblecandidateonaballotwitheligiblecandidates.Theconcept
ofuniformity,recognizedinMarylandElectionlawsforballots,appliestotheeligibilityof
candidates.Defectiveballotsareaddressedandremediedbytheoversightauthoritiesasa
functionofmitigatingchaosandconfusion.Samesetofconcernswithadefective
candidate.Aneligiblecandidateisnotequivalenttoanineligiblecandidate.Doesnotmatter
howmanychoicesareavailableperpartyforthevotertochoosebetween.Thatone
ineligiblecandidate,likethatonebadapple,spoilsthebatch.Norisanineligiblecandidate
madesomehowlegitimatebytheelectoralprocesssimplybecausehe/shehasmanagedto
skirtbythegatekeepers,secureplacementontheballotandthengathervotesneededtowin
thePrimarywithoutanyonebeingthewiserofthatcandidatesmisrepresentationoftheir
qualifications(Electionof2008).
d. DoctrineofLachesisnotapplicabletohidetheineligibilityofacandidate
Byhereffortsoverthecourseofayear,itisplainthatthechargeoffustyorstaleas
foundinLiddyvLamone,398Md.233,24344(2007)[xxxviii]areunwarrantedand
spurious.ThechallengetoMr.ObamasplacementbeganlongbeforeMr.Obamawas
certifiedasacandidateandwasongoingandactive.Itwasbythesolepersonaldiscretion
oftheSOS,JohnP.McDonough[xxxix],thatthenameofachallengedcandidatewasplaced
ontheballotknowingthattheplaintiffsstrenuouslyobjectedtohisaccesstothePrimary
ballotandpresenteddocumentationtobackupassertionsthatMr.Obamashouldnotbe
certifiedinnametotheSBEandshouldbedeniedplacementonthePrimaryBallot.Her
challengewasbackedupbymediasourcesthatshouldhavecausedtheMDSOStoinitiate
aninvestigationiffornootherreasonthantoprovideevidencethathiscertificationofMr.
Obamasnamewaslegitimate.Furthermore,notonlydidtheplaintiffschallengethename
ofMr.ObamaascertifiedbytheMDSOS,shechallengedhiseligibilityunderthefederal
employmentqualificationsofArticleII,Section1,Clause5whicharetobetakenasa
21
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
wholeandoverridesELSec.8502inaPresidentialElectionbecauseoftheSupremacy
Clause.
TheMarylandSOSandSBEcannotclaimthedefenseoflachesonthebehalfofacandidate
theyknewbymediasources[xl]wasunderchallengewithrespecttohisnameandhis
eligibilitytorunforandholdtheOfficeofthePresidency.Theirpersonalbeliefsastohis
eligibilityareirrelevant.TheyareofficersoftheMarylandelectorallawandmustfollow
thelawasitiswrittenandnotastheyinterpretit.SotoomusttheCourt.Theyhavefailed,
bySec.8502,toprotecttheelectoralprocessandtheholdersofvoterfranchisesfrom
corruptionandmassivevoterfrauddrivenbycandidatefraud(perjury).
TheCourthassaidthat[i]nitsapplication,[t]hereisnoinflexibleruleastowhat
constitutes,orwhatdoesnotconstitute,lacheshenceitsexistencemustbedeterminedby
thefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.[xli]Accordingly,theCourtwillonlyinvoke
lachesandbaraclaimasuntimelyif,undertheuniquefactsofacase,thereisan
unreasonabledelayintheassertionofonesrightsandthatdelayresultsinprejudicetothe
opposingparty.Id.(quotingFrederickRoadLtd.Pshipv.Brown&Sturm,360Md.76,
117,756A.2d963,985(2000)).
InBuxtonvBuxton,363Md.634,770A.2d152(2001)theelementsoflachesare
considered,
[t]hepassageoftime,alone,doesnotconstitutelachesbutissimplyoneofmany
circumstancesfromwhichadeterminationofwhatconstitutesanunreasonableand
unjustifiabledelaymaybemade.
Therewasnodelay,onlytheinevitablefalloutduetolackofcooperationbytheelection
officials.Thisdoesnotimplynegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiffswhofoughtwiththese
electionsofficersforfourmonthstogetthemtoactonrelevantinformationwithrespect
tothecandidatesineligibilityduetoacontroversialstandardofnaturalborncitizenand
werestonewalled.WhattheSBE,theMDSOSandthecourtsfailtounderstandisthatthere
isnoprofessionaldiscretionwithrespecttocandidateeligibilityonceachallengetothat
22
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
eligibilityhasbeenmadebyarivalcandidateand/oranactiveholderofavoterfranchise
withspecialconcernfordamage,bothrealandthreatened,tohervote.
Perthefollowingfoundonpage7oftheMDAttorneyGeneralsDefendantMotionto
Dismiss
Theexistenceofajusticablecontroversyisanabsoluteprerequisitetothemaintenanceof
adeclaratoryjudgmentactionSABELvTalborCounty,316Md332,339(1988).Asan
aspectofjusticiability,theissueofstandingiswhethertheplaintiffhasallegedsucha
personalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastojustifyajudicialremedy.Kayv
Austin,494F.Supp.554,56061(D.Mich.1980)(quotingWarthvSeldin,422US490,
498499(9175).

Thedisenfranchisementoftheplaintiffsrighttochallenge,therefusalofarequestfor
actionpertheChiefElectionsOfficertoprotecttheelectoralprocessfromasuspected
ineligiblecandidateandfinallythevotedilutionandsuppressionofvoteefficacybyover
onemillionillegitimatevotescastforanineligiblecandidateoverthosecastforaneligible
candidatearesuchpersonalstakesthatguaranteestandingfortheplaintiffs.Ifthatisnt
sufficient,thentheactofvotingfortheplaintiffsknowingofthepresenceofanineligible
candidateandthenactivelyconcealingtheinformationbynotreportingtheinfraction
becomesmisprisionoffelony.Theveryactofvotingbecomesacriminalactionwhenthe
activeholderofavoterfranchiseremainssilentinthepresenceofanineligiblecandidate.
Whatrecourseislefttotheplaintiffsactivelyassertingherrighttochallengeacandidate
shesuspectsisineligiblebyadefinedstandardofeligibility,whichisitselfacontroversy,
andwithsuchdocumentationtoraisereasonablesuspicionofadegreeofineligibility
significantenoughtowarrantinvestigationbytheelectionsofficers,andshecannotmove
theelectionsofficerstotakeaction[xlii].Whenthey,infact,delayinformallydismissing
herchallengeuntilshedemandsfromthemalettertothateffect?Howisthisnegligence
onthepartoftheplaintiff?Isthereprejudiceagainstthepartyassertingthedefenseof
laches,theSBE?No.Istherelawfulbiasagainstthechallengedcandidate,Mr.Obama?Only
withrespecttohissuspectedineligibilityperthetraditionalstandardofnaturalborncitizen
23
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
anditisnotdonewithmalice,butratherademandthatlawsmeansomethingandbeapplied
withoutbias.Thechallengetoanineligiblecandidatealwaysinvolvesprejudicewithrespect
tocriminalactivity.
X.REMEDYBYLAW
a. NatureofInjury
Thisrequestforawritofcertiorarihasspentasignificantamountofspaceclarifyingthe
casefordamagedonetotheplaintiffbytheMDSBEandtheMDSOSintheirinsistence
thatSec.8502isthecontrollingelectionslawregardingplacementofacandidateonthe
PrimaryBallotduringaPresidentialElection.Thereissubstantialdamagedonetothe
plaintiffbyanineligiblecandidatepresentintheprocess.
1) Uniformityisviolated.Aneligiblecandidateisnotequivalenttoanineligible
candidate,anymorethanaDemocraticcandidateshouldbeequivalenttoaRepublican
candidate.Deceptiononthepartofthecandidatenegatesinformedconsentofthevoter.It
isasifthevoternevervoted.
2) HolderofavoterfranchisehasFifthAmendmentrightsviolatedwithrespectto
property.Thepropertyinthecaseisthevoteitself,whichisownedbytheState
Governmentbutisgivenoverforusetothevoterbythemechanismofregistrationwiththe
stateasafranchiseholder.TheFifthAmendmentdoesnotsimplyprotectapersonfrom
selfincriminationduringinterrogationoratrial,italsoprotectsthevoteragainstthetaking
oftheirvotewithoutdueprocessoflaw.Whenacandidateliesabouthis/herqualifications,
and,viaignorance,moneyandsmarm[47],convincesavotertohandovertitleofhis/her
voteforusebythecandidateinsecuringpower,thatisaviolationofthevotersFifth
Amendment.Further,novotershouldbecoercedtotraderepresentationforthecriminal
actofmisprisionofperjury.Tovoteknowinglyforasuspectedineligiblecandidatewithout
alertingtheChiefElectionsOfficerisvoterfraud.Thisviolates42USCSection1973I(c)
falseinformationinregisteringorvotingwhoeverknowinglyorwillfullygivesfalse
informationastohisname,addressorperiodofresidencyoronewouldassume
24
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
eligibilitytorunfortheofficethatpersonseeks.Politicalcandidatesarefirstvotersand
thusareboundbythesameprohibitionsonlyingorprovidingfalseinformationasvoters
are.Anotherprovisionofthiscodethatappliestocandidatefraudandlyingis42USC1973
I(d)falsificationorconcealmentofmaterialfactsorgivingoffalsestatements
3) Holderofavoterfranchisehasherrighttochallengeviolatedandthusbothfree
speechandrighttovoteareviolated(FirstAmendmentandFourteenthamendment)along
withdueprocessandequaltreatmentunderthelaw.Inordertoparticipateintheelection
thevoterisgivenachoiceofcommittingacriminalact,subjectinghishervotetoa
criminalactornotvoting[48]whichactsasaformofvoterpurgeindirectlydrivenbyboth
theMDSBEandthecandidate,becausetheSBEcertifiedthecandidatetothelocalboards
whilehidingmaterialfacts.
4) Thepresenceofanineligiblecandidateintheelectionsprocessdrivesmassivevoter
fraudintheformoftheftofvotebymisrepresentationandthevoteitselfasanactof
misprisionofperjury.Thisrendersotherwiselegalvotesasillegitimateviabeingrendered
acriminalactorbeingsubjecttoacriminalact.Theseillegitimatevotesservetodilutethe
legitimatevotescastforaneligiblecandidate.Votedilutionasaresultoffloodingthe
electionwithillegitimatevotesrenderstheelectionillegitimateandthusresultsinelection
nullification.Boththeelectionsof2008and2012wererenderedillegitimateandthus
nullifiedbymillionsofillegitimatevotesformorethanoneineligiblecandidateduring
thoseelections.ThosecandidateswhowereeligibletorunforandholdtheOfficeofthe
Presidencywereshutoutbymassivevoterfraudonthepartofthecandidateandhis/her
politicalpartyandmembership.
5) Installationofapotentialusurperinofficeunderanundeterminedstandardof
naturalborncitizen,placestheusurperoutsidethelawandmakeshim/herimperviousto
impeachment,mandamusandquowarranto.
b. ClaimofRelief
25
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Theplaintiffrecognizesthatthedemandtokeepthecandidatesname,Mr.Obama,offthe
PrimaryBallotisrenderedmootbytheconclusionofthe2012election,however
secondaryconsiderationsremainactiveandactionablebythecourt[49].Theplaintiff
thereforeseeksreasonablereliefinthefollowing:
1) RecognitionthattheMarch9,2012letterfromtheMDSBEisadismissalofthe
requestforactionbytheplaintifftobarthenameofMr.Obamauntilhecouldprovehis
claimsofeligibility,andthatunderSec.12202,theplaintiffhad10daystoasserther
rightstojudicialreview.
2) If12202isupheldthenallcourtcostsshouldberevoked.
3) RecognitionthatSec.8502,asitiswritten,doesnothingtosecuretheMD
electoralprocessfromthepresenceofineligiblecandidatesandnaturalizedcitizens
runningfortheofficeofthePresidency.
4) AffirmthatitisthedutyoftheMDSOS,asthegatekeepertothePrimaryballotand
asadutybyelectionlawtoberesponsibleforcertifyingnotonlythenameofthe
Presidentialcandidate,butthecandidatesclaimstoeligibilityperArticleII,Section1,
Clause5infull[50].
5) RecognitionthatthePresidentialqualificationclausecriterionofnaturalborn
citizenisaConstitutionaltermofartandnostatecourtoractorhasjurisdictiontodefine
federalemploymentcriteriaandapplythemtocandidates.
6) AffirmtheimplicitdemandbytheMDElectionLawsthatunqualifiedcandidatesare
tobeidentifiedanddeniedaccesstoplacementoftheirnamesonallstateelection
documentsincluding,butnotlimitedto,certifications[51]andballots.
7) Recognizethederivativeoftherighttovoteandfreespeech,therighttochallenge
bytheplaintiffasanecessarycomponentofstateandfederalchecksandbalancesand
entailsthesameconsiderationofstandingasheldbyrivalcandidatestochallengeineligible
candidates.
26
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
8) Oncethestandardfornaturalborncitizenisdetermined,recognizethatthisfederal
employmentcriterionmustbecertifiedalongwiththePresidentialcandidatesnameand
otherfederalemploymentcriteriaandhaveSec.8502amendedaccordinglytoaddressand
remedythefatalflawintheMDelectoralprocess.
XI. CONCLUSIONANDPRAYERFORRELIEF
Theactofvotingisultimatelyoneofpoliticaltrust.Itcannotbeabusedforthepolitical
expediencyofambitionofthepoliticalclass.Article1,SEC.7oftheMDConstitution
states:TheGeneralAssemblyshallpassLawsnecessaryforthepreservationofthepurity
ofElections,therefore,theConstitutionmustbeupheldandsupportedandthedenialof
therightsofvoterstochallengeineligiblecandidatesmustberecognizedasausurpationof
powerfromtheholdersofvoterfranchiseswhoareanintegralandvigilantpartofthe
checksandbalancesoftheelectoralsystem.Oneday,someonewillformulatethecorrect
argumentandcompilethestrongestcases,statutesandholdinginthecorrectorderandthe
politicalcancerthathasseepedintoourPresidentialelectionswillbeincisedexposingthe
corruption.Likecancer,thelongeritisallowedtofester,theworseitbecomesandthe
moreheroictheeffortneededtoexciseit.TheCourtneedstodeterminewhichsideofthe
argumentspresentedinthisrequestareontherightsideofhistory.LikeDredScottv
Sandford,60US393(1857)thereisapopularmainstreampositionandthereisahigher
positiontotakewhichgoesagainstthecurrentpoliticalgrain.TheCourtmusttakethisinto
considerationandruleaccordingly.
IpraythatthisHonorableCourtwillgrantthewritofcertiorari,finallyrecognizingthefatal
flawsintheMDelectoralprocessandmovetohavethemaddressedbythestateentities
taskedwithassuringtheintegrityofthevotingprocess.Ifnot,theplaintiffandotherswill
continuetofilelawsuitstopreservetheirrights,untilthefatalflawsarerecognizedand
resolved.ThecurrentconditionofMDselectoralprocesscannotbecondonednor
toleratedinaConstitutionalRepublic.
27
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
InaccordancewithMDRule8112,Iherebycertifythatthetypefaceutilizedforthis
petitionwasTimesNewRoman,thatthetypesizeis13point,andthatthepetition
otherwisecomplieswiththerequirementsofRule8112.

Respectfullysubmittedthis29thdayofMay,2014,
________________________________
TracyFair
________________________________
MaryMiltenberger

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

IHEREBYCERTIFYthatonthis29thdayofMay,2014,acopyofthePetitionfor
WritofCertiorari,intheabovecaptionedcasewasserved,byCertifiedMail,postage
prepaid,onthefollowing:AssistantAttorneyGeneral,JeffreyDarcie(Attorneyfor
Defendants)attheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,200St.PaulPlace,Baltimore,
Maryland,21202andonAttorneyGeneralEricHolderattheUSDepartmentofJustice,
950PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC205300001.

_____________________
TracyFairProSeAppellant
19W.ObrechtRoad
Sykesville,Maryland,21784
4105525907
28
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g

Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g
Copy provided courtesy of ProtectOurLiberty.org
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
O
u
r
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
.
o
r
g