2012-2-17 - Arizona - Ken Allen v Democratic Party, Obama, Brad Nelson - Complaint for Constitutional Violations

8/3/2019 2012-2-17 - Arizona - Ken Allen v Democratic Party, Obama, Brad Nelson - Complaint for Constitutional Violations

1/16

----------------------

4

Kenneth L Allen1 10055 E Gray Hawk DrTucson Arizona 857302 [email protected] in Proper Person

5Superior Court for the Court of Arizona

Pima County6 C201210467 ) Case No.:)

)))))))Defendant's )---------------------------

Kenneth Allen8 SUMMONSPlaintiff,9

10vs.

Democratic Party; Barack Obama; Brad RNelson; et.al. Richard E. Gor-don11

12

13YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONSED,and required to serve upon Kenneth Allen,appearing in proper person, with an address of 10055 E Gray Hawk Dr, Tucson Arizona 85730an answer to the complaint pursuant to ARS 16-351(B) and Article" section I of the USConstitution which is served on you with this summons, within 30 days after service of thesummons or 60 days for the Government, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be served against you, for relief demanded in the complaint, any action

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 for the county of Pima in Tucson Arizona.21

Clerk for the Superior CourtfIi0~l;1 z m 2 ~ . . . . . . . . . ~~ ~- ~ - -. . . . _- -.._ . . . . _- "-- "'_ _ L - ._ . ~ -"

Luis Heredia, E~ecjJ)iv~t9ir~tQf~2910 N Central Ave. ", ...Democratic HeadquartersPhoenix Arizona 85012

22

23

24 Defendants copies served to:Brad R Nelson, Pima county Elections6550 S. Country Club Rd.Tucson, Arizona 8575625

26

27On Behalf of Barack H ObamaUS Attorneys Office/Civil Division process clerk405 W Congress Street, 8te. 4800Tucson Arizona 85701-50408

1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/16

2

2

1 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3 To: Sarack H Obama, Arizona Executive Director Luis Heredia of the democratic party and BradR Nelson, pima county elections director.

A lawsuit has been commenced against you (or entity whose behalf you are addressed) acopy of the complaint is attached to this notice. It has been filed in the Superior Court for Pimacounty Arizona, Tucson, Arizona and has a Docket No.C ?-0/2- j{) 4 C ,

4

56

7

8

9 It is my request that you sign and return the attached waiver in order to save the costs of10 serving you with a judicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint. The cost of servic11 will be avoided if I,receive a signed copy of the waiver 30 days after the date designated below12 as the date that the notice and request was sent, or 30 days from receipt.13 If you comply with this request and sign the waiver, it will be filed with the court and no14 further summons will be needed, then this action will proceed as if you had been served on the15 date the waiver was filed, except that you will not be obligated to answer the complaint before16 30 days from the date designated below.17

18 Dated this 17 1 3 -- ~ 1~-/},J ) 2--19 I Kenneth Allen, hereby affirm that this request has been sent to you on behalf of the Plaintiff.

~.0

21 Kenneth Allen, in proper person10055 E Gray Hawk DrTucson, Arizona2223

2425

26

27

28


3/16


4/16

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Costs of Service of Summons2

3 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain parties to cooperate in4 saving unnecessary costs of service of summons and complaint. A defendant located in the U.5 S. who after being notified of an action and asked by the plaintiff located in the U.S. to waive6 service of summons, and fails to do so will be required to bear the costs of such service unless7 good cause be shown for its failure to sign and return the waiver.8 A defendant who waives service must within the time specified on the waiver form serve on9 plaintiff a response to the complaint and must also file a signed copy of the response with the

10 court. If the answer or motion is not served within this time, a default judgment may be taken11 against the defendants. By waiving service, the defendant is allowed more time to answer than12 if the summons had be actually served when the request for waiver of service was received.13

14 Request for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities must be made to15 office of Judge assigned to the case at least (5) days before your scheduled court date.16

17 All documents to be filed in Arizona Superior Court in Pima County110 W. Congress St.,18 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 740-4200, TOO (520) 740-888719

20

21

22

23

24. . .

25

26

27

28

4


5/16

1

1

~ - - - - ( - - ; l~, .\V .--~-tr-- \\ f E B \ t ? W L , \\ ~.-:::-.-"-.~, "

, ( , ; ' 0 1 ~ , : ~ . : . - . : - , _Superior Court for the Court of Arizona

Kenneth L Allen10055 E Gray Hawk DrTucson Arizona [email protected] Proper Person2

34

5 Pima County67 ) Case No.:))))))

)))----------------------------------

C20121048Kenneth Allen8 Notice of Withdrawal of CompulsoryArbitrationlaintiff,9

10vs.

Democratic Party; Barack Obama; Brad RNelson; et.al.11

Defendant's12

13Arizona Statutes (ARS 12-133) and Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP 72-77) provide

that in civil cases where the amount in controversy (excluding attorney's fees, interest, and1415 costs) does not exceed a certain amount, the case must be referred to Compulsory Arbitration.16

In Pima County the jurisdictional limit is $50,000.00.This complaint does not exceed the $50,000.00 limit set by ARS (12-133) and the local rules;

however this case is still not subject to the Rules of Arbitration because it is a complaint forconstitutional deprivation of election rights, and violation of the constitution itself, constitutionalrights cannot be arbitrated.

The Plaintiff in this action hereby withdrawal's from Arbitration, on must freely waive theirrights, the 5th and 14th amendments guarantee due process of the federal and state courts. Alegal cause of action has traditionally been construed as a property right protected by the dueprocess clause of the constitution, see Log'an v. Zemmerman Brush co., 445 US 422, 428

1718

19

2021

22

23

24

25(1982)

26 Litigation of private rights require both a jury trial and an article III judge, see: Granfinancers,27

S.A. v Norberg, 492 US 33,51-52 (1989)Also see: Northern Pipeline, 458 US at 77-81.28


6/16

1 Conclusion2 For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff Kenneth L Allen strongly requests that this case remain

in this court and not be arbitrated.4 Dated this 17th day of February 2012

I~-'"5

6 Kenneth L Allen10055 E Gray Hawk DrTucson Arizona 85730520-514-97047

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

2


7/16

4

1



Pima County6

7 ) Case No.:)))))))))----------------------------------

Kenneth Allen8 Complaint for Constitutional Violations of theArticle II section I clause 5 and BallotChallenge pursuant to ARS 16-351 (B)and fordeclaratory and injunctive relief

Plaintiff,9

10vs.

Democratic Party; Barack Obama; Brad RNelson; et.al.11

Defendant's12

13 1 thru 38 exclusive.COMPLAINT and Ballot Challenge pursuant to ARS 16-351 (B) with respect to Barack H14 Obama, Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the15 office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if16

17 applicable. The Plaintiff [Kenneth Allen] as a legal voter in the state of Arizona herby challenges18 the Democratic Party and Barack H. Obama.. Mr. Obama is not eligible and does not meet19 constitutional mandate pursuant to Article II section 1 ofthe United States Constitution.20 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under Article 6 14 of the Arizona21 Constitution and under Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C) and ARS 16-351(8).22 2. This is the proper venue because the defendants have caused an event to happen that23 directly affects the rights of the Plaintiff (Kenneth Allen) ,and the act has taken place in the State" "24 of Arizona, and the plaintiff lives in the county of Pima, City of Tucson. The Plaintiff has also25 voted in 2008 and is a registered voter for the 2012 elections. The defendant's actions have26

27 also affected every citizen in the state of Arizona.28


8/16

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2526

27

28

1

2

3. Wherefore Plaintiffs rights have been affected by the 2008 Presidential election and the2 upcoming election for 2012.3 4. The Defendants Arizona Democratic Party's main offices are located in Phoenix, Arizona,4 USA. The office is primarily a filing office that records and files documents from Arizona5 agencies, businesses and public officers. It interacts with, and is a resource to State and6 Federal Government agencies for elections, and is responsible or should be, for the vetting of7 officials running for office such as the President of the United States, and must be compliant8 with treaties formulated under the United States Constitution, and that of the Arizona9 Constitution.

5. I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation,not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (8) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITEDSTATES is a corporation. The corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from thegovernment. This is extremely important. As I have named herein Barack H Obama, anemployee of said Corporation, doing business in the State of Arizona.6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, representative, orotherwise of the defendants: Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Partynamed herein, as does 1 through 39, inclusive, are unknown to the plaintiff, who therefore suesaid defendants by such fictitious names, and the plaintiff will amend this complaint to showtheir true names and capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed andbelieve that and allege that each of the unknown defendants are equally responsible in somemanner for the deprivation claimed and challenged herein, and caused by defendants conduct.

7. Plaintiff is hereby informed and believes" that all times relevant and material hereto,defendants do 1 through 38. Paragraphs 1 through 7, hereby and above, are herebyincorporated by reference into each and every claim for relief asserted herein below, unless thecontext clearly indicates otherwise.


9/16

16

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1

3

9. This complaint is the result of the 2008 elections, where Barack H Obama, not being vetted2 and not being a natural born citizen, was allowed to occupy the office of President of the United3 States of America,4 10,42 U,S,C. 1988 permits a State's Common law to decide a court case5 if there is no adequate Federal remedy,6 11, Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of7 America, He shall hold his office for the term of four years, and, together with the Vice8 President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:9 12, Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of

10

11 electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be12 entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust13 or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.14 13..Section II. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the15 time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall

any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years,17

and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.18 14. Contrast that with a "natural-born citizen", which was based on Natural Law theory, In this

case, a "natural-born citizen" was one who was entirely subject to the laws of nature alone.There was no need for a statutory law conferring the rights of citizenship because both parentswere citizens of the territory in which the child was born. There was no need for a positive lawbecause there was no possible chance that another nation could claim such a child as its. . .citizen. "Natural" in th.is case was based on extraction primarily, and then on the place of birth.Natural law theory is based on the jus sanguinis model of conferring citizenship - naturally fromparent to child, where the parents have the exclusive right of conferring their citizenship untotheir child, not the government.


10/16

10

11

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

2425

26

2728

1

4

15, Barack H Obama; should also be investigated for national security reasons and because if2 he isn't a Natural Born Citizen, pursuant at Article II, section I of the US Constitution and Minor3 v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875), he shouldn't be in office and should be removed from4 that office and stayed from the Arizona ballot. Before Barack Obama's name is placed on the5 Arizona Ballot, he must prove that he is indeed a " natural born citizen".6 16. Mr. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen and that the Supreme Court of the United7 States has defined "natural born citizen" as a person with both parents being citizens at the time8 of the natural born citizen's birth. Therefore, Mr. Obama does not fulfill the requirements of the9 U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President.

17. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "natural-born citizens" as "all children born in a countof parents who were its citizens." See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Courtin Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people mayor may not be withinthe broader term "citizen," it does so only after specifically identifying the narrower categoryof"natural-born citizens." The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that "citizen"is a much broader term than "natural-born citizens." Its discussion of "citizen" does not negate 0alter its earlier definition of the term "natural-born citizens." See Id. at 167-168.18. Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, Mr. Obama cannever be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court Therefore,Mr. Obama cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. SeeU.S. Const. Art. II Section I, It is also undisputed that the Arizona Democrats intend to nominateMr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States in the2012 general election ..Said nomination requires the Defendants to send documents to theSecretaries of State of all states announcing that Mr. Obama as it's Presidential nominee for theDemocratic Party in the 2012 general election and representing that he is qualified to hold theoffice of President; meaning documents that would prove he is a natural born citizen. However,they can't even produce any honest documents.


11/16

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

262728

1

5

19. Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court, Democrats and2 Arizona Republicans are aware of all undisputed facts and definitions. If he was born in Hawaii,3 it "would not" make him a natural born citizen ..There are also four (4) other obstacles to Barack4 Obama's eligibility and many other legal challenges that have been ignored by the status quo5 and protected by the media, however that ends with the American people.6 20. On January the 26th, 2012, I, Kenneth Allen, did testify for Mark Hatfield, the Attorney of7 record for Carl Swensson and Kevin R. Powell, and Attorney Van Irion in a State Hearing in the8 State of Georgia to documents received by myself [Kenneth Allen] from the US citizenship and9 immigration service concerning Barack Obama Sr, Mr. Obama's father.

21. These documents will prove that Mr. Obama Sr. never naturalized in the United States andwas never a citizen of this country The evidence mentioned above will also be admitted to thiscourt, proving that Barack H. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen, pursuant to Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875.22. Barack Obama's presence on the Arizona Ballot takes away votes from other eligiblecandidates seeking the same office of President, and defrauds the voters of the great State ofArizona including the plaintiff.23. It is this court's duty to protect and defend both the State Constitution and the FederalConstitution. Article II Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth theeligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Personbe eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States.The Twelfth Amendment states that, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office ofPresident shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The FourteenthAmendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that "All persons born


12/16

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1

6

or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the2 United States and of the State wherein they reside."3 Under Article One of the United States Constitution, Representatives and Senators are only4 required to be U.S. citizens. The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among5 Congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of6 the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as7 effective. "When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if8 possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal 'must be clear and manifest. ' " Unitec:9 States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939)." Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551

(1974).24. If we go right to heart of all the controversy about Obama's eligibility for the last four years.He is not eligible. He never was. It doesn't matter where he was born. It never did. Whatmattered - and still matters- is who his parents were. According to Obama, and the limited andquestionable documentation he has provided to date, and documents provided by the Plaintiff inthe Georgia Administrative court in Powell v. Obama, his father was a Kenyan student whonever became a U.S. citizen and was deported. Therefore, he doesn't meet the test of eligibility.The fact that he has reluctantly provided highly questionable documentation to establish hisbirth in Hawaii is irrelevant, except that it suggests he is trying to obscure the real facts and thereal substance of his eligibility.25. The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in theNaturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law,. .specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "The children ofcitizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the UnitedStates shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shallnot descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."


13/16

16

2021

22

23

2627

28

1

7

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the2 Congress that the U.S. not be led by someone with dual loyalties.3 26. Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment, affirmed in a4 discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the5 jurisdiction of the United States of "parent's" not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."6 27. The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read7 by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in8 the Constitution.9 Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the

10

11 father's citizenship was a loyalty issue: 'The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in12 the country, of parents. who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself13 otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of14 their fathers, and succeed to all their rights .... In order to be of the country, it is necessary that15 a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only

the place of his birth, and not his country."17

28. Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the18 Republican presidential nominee, was a natural-born citizen, it specified that his parents were19 American citizens.

29. The "non-binding" resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, stated that McCain - bornto two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, "is a'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States",. . .

24 however remember that resolution was non binding and not worth the paper it was written on.25 First cause of Action

30. Plaintiff re-alleges 1 thru 29 of the aforementioned complaint.31. The Democratic Party will nominate Barack H Obama as its nominee for president.


14/16

1

8

32. The Democratic Party will send documents alleging Obama to be eligible for the office of2 president and falsely represent that Barack Obama is qualified for the office of president but will3 not mention eligibility.4 Second cause of action5 33. Plaintiff re-alleges 1 thru 32 of this complaint, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama6 have knowledge of the facts and actions contained herein, that there is willful fraud and7 misrepresentation of the facts by the defendants.8 34. The Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and declaratory relief to prevent further injury or9 further depravation of rights and the rights of other citizens of Arizona

10

11 35. Barack H Obama does not meet Article II section I clause 5 mandate, and never did.12 Third Cause of Action13 36. Plaintiff re-alleges 1 thru 35 of this complaint.14 37. There is a clear conflict that exists between the defendants and the Plaintiff regarding the15 legal definition of Natural Born Citizen, and precedent already set forth by the Supreme Court.16 38. It is this courts duty to protect the rights to prevent irreparable harm and damage by the17

defendants to the plaintiff and others.18 Conclusion19 39. Plaintiff re-alleges 1 thru 39 and In conclusion the Plaintiff has been damaged and every20

21 person in the State of Arizona has been harmed through the placement of a candidate that at22 the most could be a dual citizen, form of a foreign father. In a famous case, MR. JUSTICE23 DOUGLAS wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717,24 GO>723-736 (1952) .. He noted that "[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims25 from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting," id. at 733; that one26 with dual nationality cannot turn that status "into a fair-weather citizenship," id. at 736; and that27 "[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would28 not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship," ibid. The District Court in this


15/16

1

9

very case conceded:2 It is a legitimate concern of Congress that those who bear American citizenship and receive its3 benefits have some nexus to the United States.4

5 Relief Requested6 40. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully request that this court,7 1) Reaffirm the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). Is standing precedent, and that a8 Natural Born Citizen is the child of 2 parents who are loyalty to only the United States.9 2.) That Barack Obama Sr. was a foreign National and a citizen of England.

10

11 3) Issue an order barring Barack Obamas name from the 2012 Presidential election in Arizona.12 4) An Order to the Secretary of state staying Barack Obamas name from the 2012 election13 Ballots.14 5) An order for the defendant to provide documents regarding Obama and his presence at any15 hearing scheduled by this court.16 6) For any and further relief that this court deems just to include a jury trial.17

18

19Respectfully Submitted,

~20 7Kenneth Allen, in proper person21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


16/16

4



Pima County67 ) Case No.:)

)) Proof of Service)))))

--------------------------~)

Kenneth Allen8 Plaintiff,9

10vs.

Democratic Party; Barack Obama; et.al.Defendant's1

12

13I Kenneth L Allen declare under the penalty of perjury that I have served the summons andcomplaint in this case on: Barack Obama care of US Attorney's Office/Civil Division ProcessClerk, 405 W. Congress Street, Ste. 4800, Tucson Arizona 85701-5040, Arizona Democraticheadquarters, 2910 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85012 and Pima county electionsDirector, Brad R. Nelson, 6550 S. Country Club Rd., Tucson, Arizona 85756.

14

15

1617

By: United States Mall certified receipt return request or in person.1819 ,/Dated thisl '>clayof February 2012

~20

21 Kenneth Allen, in proper person22

2310055 E Gray Hawk DrTucson Arizona 85730 Copies- served to all defendants

24 520-514-970425

26

27

28

2012-2-17 - Arizona - Ken Allen v Democratic Party, Obama, Brad Nelson - Complaint for Constitutional Violations

Documents