How to Restore the Republic - Legal Case Outline for Theresa Cao

 March 31, 2011
How to Restore the Republic


Jedi Pauly & Theresa Cao



Greetings readers.  I bring you a report from the front in our continuing struggle against the unlawful tyranny that the unlawful U.S. Congress and Obama have foisted upon the American People. 


I am happy to report that "Madam Speaker" Theresa Cao and I have recently formed an alliance to work together in the ongoing efforts on behalf of the American People to expose the illegitimate usurper Obama and the unlawful foreign government that is the 112th Congress, in order that we all may restore our lawful government of We the People. 


Theresa Cao subscribes to the Natural Law Theory that I have discovered and attempted to describe here at the Post and Email with numerous Articles.  Theresa agrees with me that by the Laws of Nature alone, that solely determine Article II "natural born Citizen" to be defined entirely by Natural Law and not Positive Law, that it only requires one to be born to a U.S. citizen father in order to qualify for the Office of President, as long as the other provisions of Article II are also met, of course.  She has come to realize that your place of birth and the citizenship status of a mother are not relevant at all and have no bearing on the United States Constitution Article II qualifications for U.S. President.


Theresa has learned about Natural Law and Positive Law and she has learned how to read and interpret the Declaration of Independence to discover what her natural sovereign political rights are and where they come from.  As a result, Theresa has come to realize the correct legal approach that shows to the world that her actions on January 6, 2011 in the U.S. Congress were lawful, and her arrest was therefore not lawful, and that not only is Obama illegitimate, but in fact so is the Congress.


Here is a brief synopsis of a rough draft outline of her legal case, as she and I see it, that I wrote up for her:



Legal Case Outline For Theresa Cao



Motion to Recuse



If the judge in the case is an Obama appointee, then you must first put in a Motion to remove and replace the judge with a non- Obama appointee, since you are accusing Obama of not being legitimate, which puts any Obama-appointed judge into a personal conflict of interest in this case.  This motion must be brought first before the motion below.  Any judge appointed by Obama cannot hear and decide upon your Motion To Dismiss.  Just look up or get help with how to craft this motion.  If the judge is not an Obama appointee then there is no problem, just skip this part and go on to the next motion outline.



Outline of Simplified Revised Motion to Dismiss 


1)  This case is unique in American History because there has never been an American President elected after the Sunset Clause expired who was not born to an American citizen father.


2) Obama was not born to a U.S. citizen father, therefore he is not legally qualified to be the President, since Article II "natural born Citizen" is defined solely by the Laws of Nature that define Natural Law, and not by U.S. Positive Law.


3) Due to 2) above, Congress has abandoned their right to claim they represent the American People, since Congress cannot pass any legitimate Bills into Law without a legitimate President.  Furthermore, the ongoing maintenance of Obama in Office by the Congress is a violent criminal act of treason that has overthrown the Constitution of the United States and replaced the legitimate government of the People with an unlawful rival government that cannot represent the People.  This ongoing act of treason by the Congress has unlawfully disenfranchised the U.S. citizens of their property by robbing the citizens of their rightful government, which has rendered Congress to be illegitimate.


4) Due to 3) above Theresa Cao's outburst in Congress was not a political free speech issue, but instead was a self-defensive attempt to repel the violent criminal acts of Congress that have unlawfully taken Theresa's property, since the legitimate government belongs to the People and not to Congress.  Theresa has a fundamental common law right, according to the Laws of Nature, to repel Congress' criminal actions and attempt to defend and secure her property that has been illegally taken from her by Congress without due process of law.  Theresa Cao's outburst equates to saying. "Stop your criminal actions against me and the People and give me back my property that you have stolen by unlawful violence".  This is a fundamental right that Theresa has, not a political criminal act of free speech.


5) The government's claim to "reasonable" restrictions on free speech does not apply since:


a) Congress is no longer a legitimate representative body as long as Obama is maintained in the office of President.  Therefore, Congress has no right to claim protection from being disrupted since they are now a rival criminal government to that of the lawful Constitutional government of the United States.


b) Theresa' actions go beyond political speech and are instead an attempt to self-defensively repel unlawful violence and reclaim her rightful property that has been unlawfully and violently stolen from her.  Theresa's actions are just the lawful exercise of her fundamental rights.


c) Even if the government's claim to "reasonable" restrictions did apply, the restriction in this particular unique case in history would not be "reasonable" since Theresa is only exercising her fundamental rights according to the Laws of Nature as outlined in b) which supersedes the government's claim to "reasonable" restrictions on speech.


6) Since both the government Prosecutor and the Judge are attorneys who are responsible for understanding and knowing the meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen", it cannot be claimed by the government that the government does not know that Obama is not a legitimate President.  Therefore, the attempt by the government to apply the criminal statutes in this particular instance is disingenuous at best and potentially constitutes a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud and treason by maintaining the criminal political facade that Congress is legitimate and Obama is a lawful President which he clearly is not.


7) Due to the reasons above and the unique circumstances in history of this case, any attempt to apply the civil criminal codes thus charged by the government would not be a legitimate function of the government, but would itself constitute a criminal political act of persecution for the mere attempt by Theresa to stop criminal activity by the Congress and thereby reclaim and restore her lawful government which is her property.


8) For the reasons outlined above, the government has no choice but to dismiss the charges against Theresa Cao with prejudice.



Trial Outline


If the government refuses to grant your Motion To Dismiss as outlined above, then I would demand a jury trial and proceed with Discovery.  What you are going to want to show at trial is that your actions are not the crime that is being charged as occurring that day in Congress since your actions are protected as natural rights for the reasons claimed above, and that it is in fact Congress and the Prosecutor who are engaging in criminal acts not you.


Discovery Phase


You will need motions to compel Discovery to prove your case.  I would consider these factors in my Discovery:


1) Does the judge know what is meant by "natural born Citizen" in Article II?  Has the judge been contacted by Obama or Congress regarding this issue, and if so by whom and what was said.


2) Does the Prosecutor know what is meant by "natural born Citizen" in Article II and what defines it?  Compel them to provide a written response so that you will have evidence of their ignorance, since it is a sure bet that they do not know the true Natural Law theory that defines "natural born Citizen" and they are preceding in ignorance of the Law.

Then I would instruct them as to the correct interpretation and document this fact as evidence to be introduced later at trial, to show that the Prosecutor now knows full well that Obama is not qualified because you have instructed him in the self-evident objective reality of its meaning, which implies intent upon the government to commit a crime by prosecuting you for your actions since they cannot claim ignorance of the law.  Also, ask the Prosecutor's office if they have been contacted by Obama or Congress or their agents regarding your case, or if they themselves contacted Obama or Congress regarding this, and who contacted and what was said, then you will follow up with Discovery upon those individuals who have contacted the Prosecutor or the Prosecutors Office, if that has happened.


3) This is the most important part.  You want to compel Discovery upon Obama to determine if he was born to a U.S. citizen father or not.  You would want to compel an Affidavit from Obama, or even better, force a Deposition from him.  I would force a Deposition and ask him these questions at least:


a) Was he born to a U.S. citizen father, yes or no? 


b) Is he a Constitutional scholar, yes or no? 


c) Does he know what the meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" is in Article II, yes or no?  If yes, get him to disclose his understanding.  If no, then ask him how he knows that he qualifies for the Office of President.


Since Obama has a team of the best attorneys in the world they must know the truth about the true meaning and interpretation of Article II "natural born Citizen" and are themselves engaging in criminal fraud by advising Obama on how to cheat to stay in power.  Ask Obama if any of the attorneys have told him that he does not qualify.  This will be introduced later as evidence that speaks to the credibility that Obama cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that he does not qualify, which proves his criminal intent and conspiracy with others to commit fraud and treason.  It will stretch credibility if Theresa Cao, who is a simple layman, can discover and explain the obvious and simple meaning of "natural born Citizen" and how it is obviously defined by the Laws of Nature to mean born to a citizen father, and Obama with his law background and team of outstanding world-class attorneys don't even know.  The jury will be amazed and not believe that Obama or the Prosecutor or Judge cannot possibly know that Obama is unlawfully in the Office of President.


4) I would also depose those responsible for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo put out from Congress, because the memo proves criminal intent and conspiracy to commit fraud upon the American public by misleading them into a false meaning and interpretation of Article II "natural born Citizen".  This will be used later in your trial to convince the jury of the massive criminal activity of the Congress to cover-up Obama's fraud and illegitimacy.


I think this is enough for your Discovery.





The evidence might include but not limited to:


1) The Declaration of Independence


2) The Constitution


3) Vattel Law of Nations sections 212, 215 etc.


3) The results of the Depositions from above.


4) Obama's autobiography.


5) News clippings, legal cases, etc. regarding the ongoing controversy.


6) The CRS memo from Congress regarding "natural born Citizen" that shows an attempt to mislead the American public by claiming a true statement (that "natural born Citizen" is not defined in the Constitution) but presenting that claim without disclosing that it is not supposed to be defined in the Constitution, which is a lie of omission, which can be clearly seen as an attempt to mislead, because the rest of the memo goes on to try to convince you that, since it is not defined in the Constitution, it is meant to be defined by soil jurisdiction which is governed by the Positive Law which places it under Congress' and the Courts' jurisdictions to define,  --which is an obvious lie because it is not supposed to be under their jurisdiction, as the term "natural born Citizen" is solely defined by Natural Law and the Laws of Nature to specifically prevent Congress and the Courts from being able to define it with Positive Law.  This is one of your most important pieces of evidence because it will show how the true meaning or Natural Law Theory is obvious and plain.





Now when you get to the trial, you are going to want to show the jury that your actions are not the crime that was charged as being committed, for the reasons in your Motion To Dismiss, and that your actions are protected by the Laws of Nature that give you the right to disrupt the unlawful Congress as an act of self-defense in order to restore your lawful government, and that it is actually Obama, Congress, Prosecutor and Judge, that are committing the crimes. 


You will have an Opening Statement to the jury.  I would say that you are going to show the jury what the true and obvious simple meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen" is according to the Natural Law Theory that is described by the context of history, the Declaration of Independence, Vattel, and the science of jurisprudence which defines the American legal system to be based on both Positive Law and Natural Law.  I would tell the jury that this meaning is so well-founded in law and so easy and obvious to determine that it is beyond all credibility that Obama and his attorneys and the Congress do not know what it means. 


I would then say, that because you as a simple layman can figure it out, this proves that anyone should be able to see by the evidence that you will present, where the Government and Press etc. have attempted to address this issue, that their disinformation amounts to an obvious criminal cover-up of the truth in order to get away with overthrowing the legitimate government and replacing it with an unlawful government that is foreign to our Constitution.  I would say that you do not dispute that you cried out in Congress, but that the evidence that you are going to show the jury will exonerate you from any claims that you have committed a crime, and will show that it is rather the government who is committing the crimes, which makes your actions not only lawful but your duty.


You then proceed to show them the Natural Law Theory that proves that Article II "natural born Citizen" is simply referring to a Sovereign Citizen that is secured by the Laws of Nature as a natural political right that only comes from males (citizen father) according to the Laws of Nature that define Article II.




The government and many attorneys that have attempted to advise Theresa contend that this is a case of "disorderly conduct" on Theresa's part and that the government has a superior right to limit her political speech in the Halls of Congress.  They are wrong in this instance.  Theresa is not the one who acted disorderly on January 6th in Congress.  Rather, it is Obama and the Congress who are acting disorderly, by ignoring the Constitutional provisions of Article II and the self-evident Laws of Nature that define "natural born Citizen" that has caused the Congress to become an unlawful rival government who is acting "disorderly" by exercising tyranny upon the American People by passing Bills into statutes that are not valid.


As the reader may recall, the Rutherford Institute attorneys originally jumped at the chance to represent and defend Theresa.  However, they publicly stated that Theresa's case was not about Obama's legitimacy but only about the First Amendment.  I tried to tell them that they were wrong about that because I knew that if the government is legitimate then you do not have the right to disrupt Congress with your political speech.  The situation is analogous to yelling fire in the Congress when there is no fire.  That would not be a protected right guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The only way for Theresa to have the right to disrupt Congress would be if there was in fact a fire; then her actions would be protected by the Laws of Nature and the First Amendment.  Since the 'fire' in this instance is a political fire caused by Congress and Obama due to his illegitimacy, you cannot remove the issue of Obama's legitimacy (which is governed by the Laws of Nature) from Theresa's case and hope to provide a meaningful defense for her actions that fall under the First Amendment.


Apparently, the attorneys for the Rutherford Institute did some research and realized that they could not provide a defense for Theresa because they had in fact removed the political fire of Obama's legitimacy from the case.  The case that Congress and Obama themselves had started by their own voluntary actions of ignoring the Laws of Nature that govern Article II "natural born Citizen" meaning.  Theresa did not create the political fire with her outburst, she was trying to put the fire out with her outburst, the fire that Congress and Obama had started.  The Rutherford Institute hamstrung themselves and therefore were unable to provide a meaningful legal defense strategy for Theresa and so she was forced to fire them.  I have now solved that  problem, and Theresa and I now have a proper defense strategy outline (above) that will not only defend Theresa, but will also establish a court precedent that Obama is not a lawful President and Congress is also not legitimate.  This is why this case is the most important case in U.S. history in my estimation.  It is also the most perfect case so far among all of the cases that have attempted to establish the rule of law regarding Obama's right to be President, especially since standing is not an issue.  The potential of this case is enormous because no matter what the government does now, as long as the defense strategy above is followed, eventually Obama and the Congress will lose and Theresa and the American People will win.


This case is about, among other things, Theresa's right to assert her natural political rights of free speech and disrupt an unlawful Congress that aught to be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution in this particular unique situation where Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" and the government is no longer valid and cannot legitimately claim to represent the American People. 


Theresa's case is also about Theresa's natural right to secure for herself her natural rights of political Sovereignty that have been illegally taken away from her, that were supposed to be protected by both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and also guaranteed by Article II qualifications for President -- since Article II qualifications for the Office of President represents the consent agreement made by the People that authorizes the sovereign powers of the government to be a representative body of the People, which authorizes the government to be able to make Bills into Laws that the citizens are then bound to obey.  Congress and Obama have broken the consent agreement with their voluntary unlawful actions and are therefore no longer a representative body of the People.  In effect, the Congress and Obama have stolen the government and made it their own private enterprise that belongs to them and not to the People.


Teresa's case is identical to the situation of the American Revolution as declared in the Declaration of Independence.  This is the most historic and important case in American History since the foundation of our Republic.


The entire cause of the American Revolutionary war for Independence was that the Colonists were being governed over by a non-representative Monarchy and Parliament in England.  The government of England imposed laws and restrictions on the Colonies without the consent of the People living in the Colonies.  As a result, these laws were not seen as valid and were believed to represent an unlawful taking of natural rights that belonged to the People living in the Colonies.  This led to the Founding Fathers declaring, that as a result of this non-representative authority where the consent of the People had not been obtained, it was then the right of the People to separate themselves to the equal sovereign political station according to which "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them". 


The situation that Theresa and the American People find themselves in at this time in history is exactly the same as in 1776.  Obama and the Congress' illegitimacy, due to their ignoring Article II "natural born Citizen" requirements, has caused them to be a government that does not have the consent of the People and is therefore non-representative of the People.  As a result of this, Theresa now has the right to reassert her sovereign political authority to be separate and equal to the government's, just like it was declared in the Declaration of Independence according to the Laws of Nature, which proclaims that right for her when government is non-representative and acts without the consent of the governed.  That properly describes what Theresa did on January 6th when she cried out in Congress, and this is why her actions were lawful and the government has no right to criminalize her.  The government has brought this situation upon themselves with their own unlawful actions, in the same way that King George and the Parliament of England brought the war of 1776 upon themselves with their unlawful actions. 


The government, who arrested and is now trying to prosecute Theresa, is doing exactly what King George did in the Revolution, in effect declaring Theresa to be an outlaw and criminal for nothing more than exercising her Natural Rights, that are guaranteed and protected by both the Laws of Nature (Natural Law) and U.S. Positive Law at Article II and by the 14th Amendment and possibly other Amendments.  If it was legitimate for our Forefathers to claim and secure their natural sovereign political rights in 1776, then it is also legitimate for Theresa, and any American for that matter, to lawfully disrupt the unlawful Congress in order to restore the lawful Congress, so that the People will have secured their natural sovereign authority which they are lawfully and legally entitled to as per the consent agreement specified in Article II of the contract called the U.S. Constitution.