We got an answer from Barker.  Although she has disappointed us with her bogus judgment and finding of dismissal, all is not gloom and despair.  In a way, things are brighter than they appear, in my humble opinion, and now we have the proof we need that we did not have before, that now permits us to make a proper analysis of the situation regarding Obama and the legitimacy of the courts and due process.  Now we can actually objectively analyze what is going on, without much or any speculation, and see how to proceed. 

Before we discuss Barker's ruling, there are a few preliminaries to discuss.  If the U.S. and State courts are going to be courts of competent jurisdiction under Obama, then only a judge can make that happen and only by their behavior alone.
 

Part I 

The True Nature of the U.S. and State Court Systems under Obama and the Application of De Facto Officer Doctrine 

Now that we have both Stinson's and Barker's religious rulings that come after being presented with the scientific fact of the Natural Law Theory of the Father, rulings that are purely religious opinions that are opposite and opposed to the scientific analysis presented with the Natural Law Theory of the Father, we can see the true religious nature of the courts in the United States.  From this modern situation, we can also properly comprehend and understand the nature of the religious persecution that the Colonists were trying to flee from under King George III, an aspect of religious persecution derived from the Divine Right of Kings, that these current judges are using as the basis of their judgments and claim that they are courts of competent jurisdiction who can render valid judgments or pronounce Kings to be President. 

We could not tell before Guthrie v. United States that the courts were exercising religious opinions, because all other cases were Unity cases that failed to provide the proper evidence and facts to the court as to the proper interpretation and meaning of nbC, so the presumption that the courts were courts of competent jurisdiction rendering lawful judicial acts and decisions was never properly challenged and so they must be presumed to be courts of competent jurisdiction until such evidence is obtained that can prove that they are not courts of competent jurisdiction.  I could not even properly challenge the jurisdiction of the courts without knowing if the courts are courts of competent jurisdiction, and I cannot know that under Obama until I see the behavior of a judge who is presented with proper facts and proper law.  Only then, based upon the behavior of the particular judge with the facts presented, can anyone have the complete proof of the nature of the courts.  Prior to such proof, those of us who are aware of the Natural Law Theory of the Father can see that, in general, the courts are not courts of competent jurisdiction, due to the breakdown of the government beginning from the Office of President, but we cannot say for sure that the judges know this.  All we can say for sure is that they are supposed to know, but appear not to know, and then are claiming immunity as if they are courts of competent jurisdiction when someone like Paul Guthrie walks into court and puts the naked truth and obvious self-evident natural definition right in front of their nose, which none other than Guthrie has done so far. 

The only person who ever came close to properly challenging the jurisdiction of the courts before Paul Guthrie was Nicholas Purpura in his case Purpura v. Sebelius.  He was a Unity Theorist due to Mario Apuzzo's influence until he met Paul Guthrie, then he had doubts and tried to get what he could of the Natural Law Theory of the Father into his lawsuit, but it was already too late because I did not learn of Nicholas Purpura and his case until after the case was dismissed at the District Court level, and you cannot introduce new facts that are not presented at, or a result of, the lower court rulings.  This is why someone had to move into court with the correct theory definition so that we could properly understand and analyze what is going on in the courts.  For example, in the Purpura case, Nicholas was very screwed over by the Appeals court who refused to recuse the Obama appointed judges from his case even with a full en banc hearing, and he knew it and knew he could not get a fair hearing, and he didn't get one, but he could not actually prove this to the court or anyone but me (or someone else who knows the Natural Law Theory of the Father definition and meaning). 

With Obama, both of the State Secretaries of State and Congress failed to properly vet Obama and prevent him from the Office of President, or they did vet him and then knowingly and intentionally committed High Treason for political purposes and selfish gain.  In any case, the net result is that the courts in the U.S., both federal and State courts, are not automatically presumed to be courts of competent jurisdiction like they are in the normal situation with a nbC in the Office.  At least they are not presumed to be courts of competent jurisdiction by those of us who are honest and aware of how the Political Law of Nature already defines natural born citizen (general noun) long before the Constitution was even written. 

Now, based upon Stinson's and Barker's religious rulings in the face of contradictory scientific facts in evidence, we can see that the judges are presuming that they are courts of competent jurisdiction because they must. They cannot take cognizance of the necessary scientific facts of Nature that will prove that they are not courts of competent jurisdiction, because it will also prove that they have no immunity.  This is proof of a mental conflict that gives rise to an incompetency and incapacity that prevents judges from doing their job as judges, thus we functionally have no due process rights available.  What passes for due process rights in the courts under Obama is mere form and appearance of due processes based upon religion and is without any substance.  That is the nature of both rulings from the court from both of these two judges, and that is what you will read when you read the rulings from Barker or Stinson. 

Any person who files a complaint under these current political conditions, asserting their political rights of consent to be derived from their State citizen father, will suffer the same religious political persecution until some judge wakes up and realizes what Guthrie realizes and decides to find their courage and do their duty and job.  This is a warning to others that it is very dangerous now to bring a suit with the Natural Law Theory of the Father, the only theory anyone can properly use to have standing or claim an injury or remove Obama and restore the rule of law and Constitution.  The bogus government is likely to retaliate.  I don't have the resources to defend myself if the government decides that they have had enough of Paul Guthrie.  I would not even have recourse to any valid courts to defend myself or any recognized due process, because they will not recognize Obama to be a King instead of their assumption that he is a President, which is my only defense and is essential for my due process rights and Liberty Rights to be secured and the benefit enjoyed. 

It turns out that the natural born Citizen clause of Article II, and its correct and proper definition and meaning, is actually fundamentally defining of the federal and State courts to be courts of competent jurisdiction.  If you remove the head of State and replace him with a non-nbC, contrary to the Constitution and thus contrary to the will of the People and Political Law of Nature, then the government is no longer the government under the Constitution which can obtain consent from the People and thus the courts cannot prove that they are legitimate Article III courts and State courts that can render any lawful judicial decisions or acts.  Therefore, until Obama is removed and replaced, no lawsuit has any standing in any U.S. or State court, irregardless of what facts are presented in the lawsuit and provided to a judge, unless the judge has the ability to take cognizance of the facts that can permit the judge by his own volition to force the de jure jurisdiction back into the court, like we are trying to do.  In this situation we are reliant upon the judges to re-introduce the Constitution and rule of law in order to gain our standing, and we are not supposed to be reliant upon them or in this position, prior to even filing a case, which shows us how the due process is broken before one even can attempt to file a case or make an Appeal. 

Both the judges and the citizen are supposed to be reliant upon the Constitution, U.S. codes, and the rules of procedure and Laws of Nature, which are all independently reliable and make the system function, not upon the subjective unrestrained arbitrary authority of deluded judges, who are currently carrying out business as usual as if nothing has changed in the jurisdiction of their courts, which of course it has, and in a big and significant way, that makes the courts now religious courts and not courts of science and law. 

The courts have become a religious venue, preventing the recognition and protection of rights that belong to the People that are supposed to be independent of one's religious point of view.  In the U.S. courts today under Obama, whether or not one has standing depends upon one's religious point of view.  If you are of the religious opinion that Obama is a President, then for you the courts are courts of competent jurisdiction which can lawfully commit to judicial acts and you can have standing and obtain compensation for an injury and you will never have a cause to sue King Obama (unless his motorcade runs over your foot and then he wouldn't be personally responsible but you would have standing for an injury).  If you are of the political science persuasion and realize objectively, according to facts and laws that exist in Nature and can be observed in Nature or by human reason, that Obama is a King and dictator and not a representative of the People and thus not a President, then for you, there are no courts of competent jurisdiction and you cannot have standing and obtain compensation or relief for an injury, and you are ruled to be a liar and heretic who is frivolous and malicious (criminal and hateful) and your 'political activity' --that is not even political activity under the Constitution, it is simply the natural right to defend oneself against untruths and fascist dictatorship-- is deemed to be a criminal activity that is sedition against the United States as the United States is now defined by Congress, Courts, and the State Secretaries of State contrary to Natural Law and objective facts and objective reason. 

The judges in our case are suffering Megalomania and Religiosity, and thus have a mental incapacity or inability to take cognizance of a pertinent material or legal fact, which is a mental incapacity that disqualifies these two judges, and any judge who rules against the Natural Law Theory of the Father.  Proof of this statement is conclusively and objectively given by the two judgments now rendered by Stinson and Barker.

A word about judges' immunity 

Ordinarily, the behavior of a judge is not defining upon whether or not the Article III courts or State courts are courts of competent jurisdiction which can hear a case and proceed to render a valid judgment that must be accepted.  Ordinarily, a particular judge's behavior might speak to the particular judge's competency and whether or not a particular case is valid law as a matter of established precedent, but the judge behaving irrationally or without knowledge of law and rendering wrong decisions does not define the courts to not be courts of competent jurisdiction to hear a case and render a judgment.  Such bad behavior and wrong judgments and decisions are not defining upon the court, only upon the particular judge.  All of this is chucked out the window if a non-nbC occupies the Office of President. 

The immunity that protects judges is a consent authority derived from the consent of the People, meant to protect the state from lawsuits involving injuries that occur due to the consequences of any rogue judge rendering bad decisions.  This also frees up the judge to not have to worry about dire consequences for potentially making a bad judgment in a case, so that the judge will be able to exercise the decision-making process free from fear and interference or threat of retaliation, and free from the threat of politics.  But this can only apply to State and federal courts by consent of the People (already given in the nbC clause) if they are courts of competent jurisdiction under the Constitution (defined by enforcement of the nbC clause).  Otherwise there is no consent for immunity for a judge, other than by his or her behavior, as the prior consent agreement in Article II that was given is now severed.  If a judge wants to now show and prove that he is an Article III judge operating according to the consent derived and obtained from the People, the only appropriate behavior for that judge, now that we have filed our case and obtained these two rulings, is to immediately stay their cases and issue an arrest warrant and restraining order upon Obama, so that it will provoke a crisis in Congress that will force them under the 25th Amendment to replace Obama, thus curing the lack of competent jurisdiction in the courts.  Biden might or might not legally qualify, but Congress could decide what to do about that.  Even if Biden were not immediately disqualified due to being complicit in the fraudulent Obama administration, in any case they could properly just impeach and remove Biden for aiding and abetting High Treason, or at least for fraud rising to the level of a 'High Crime or Misdemeanor' offense that is impeachable for Biden since he is a natural born Citizen and is supposed to know better and must assume some responsibility for fraud Obama if he agrees to be a Vice President otherwise he could just pardon Obama and that would not go down well with the People. 

 

Application of the De Facto Officer Doctrine of Judges 

If the courts are not proper courts under the Constitution due to a non-nbC President, which they are not, then the situation is rather like all the judges being elected judges that were not qualified to be elected to their positions.  As long as they are not discovered and exposed as invalid judges, and as long as they do their jobs according to the Constitution and other U.S. codes, then the de facto officer doctrine protects the bogus judges with immunity and the decisions rendered in previous cases are considered valid --until such time as the judges are exposed in their deficiency as judges, at which point they must be removed, or the deficiency repaired, in order for the judge to continue being a judge with the ability to hear cases and render lawful judicial decisions and acts.  That is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with Stinson and Barker and all State and federal judges under Obama, and when Barker put a stay on the case and asked for more information.  Thus it appeared that she was doing exactly what would be required of a judge who has taken the decision to reassert the jurisdiction of the Constitution into the federal courts.  In hind sight, we can now see that she was just setting me up for a fall.  But who really fell here, me or Barker? 

Barker has no clue that her ruling and judgment provides absolutely no immunity at all for her or Stinson, and actually could lead to her arrest and criminal trial and even possible execution for High Treason.  If we ever get a proper nbC President again, his administration could blow through her presumption of immunity like it was tissue paper.  All a new administration with an nbC President would have to say is that they do not recognize the foreign bogus jurisdiction of the previous administration, and that Guthrie put them both on notice and even gave them the opportunity to undo what they had done so as not to be criminals, and they still went ahead anyway and declared Obama to be a President and a natural born Citizen, and then what would Barker and Stinson do?  How would they defend themselves once a new valid President and his administration arrest and charge them with crimes?  They would have no defense and the tables would be turned on them.  They would attempt to say that they were Article III judges who were immune and the prosecutor would just say prove it.  What are they going to introduce as evidence in their criminal trial to prove their immunity in light of the arguments and facts presented by Guthrie that was put right before their stupid faces?   Are they just going to don their black robes and bang a gavel and show a certificate and say 'see, see, I am a judge, I'm really a judge'?  That is not what defines a judge with immunity.  They would be in the position of having to find evidence that Obama was actually the offspring of a State citizen father, in order to prove that they are immune for their actions against Guthrie and immune for any judicial ruling on other cases they have judged after Guthrie's case giving notice to them of the facts.  This is also true for any judge now from this time forward on any case, who could be prosecuted because they are all put on notice by their obligation to take note of recent court rulings, and by the facts contained within the lawsuits, and by the fact that we served sufficient heads of the government agencies who must now be aware, so that they have no presumption of immunity any longer for any of their actions. 

Even without Guthrie's case and these rulings, there still would be all kinds of case law that would be invalidated, even if the judges could still be shown to be immune.  Problems would appear in any particular case about any supposed law passed under the Obama administration, particularly where the facts of the case cannot provide sufficient evidence to show that the presumption of the applicability of the de facto officer doctrine is valid and so protect the judge's immunity, like in Guthrie's case for sure, but even perhaps in the Unity Theory cases.  All judges before the notice of the facts to Stinson and Barker would probably be immune, but any case adjudicated regarding laws passed under Obama would still be invalid law.  All cases including and after Barker and Stinson can be shown to be invalid law irregardless of the facts of the case, due to the exposure now that the courts are not courts of competent jurisdiction, which all courts must now take judicial notice of.  By failing to take judicial notice and continuing as if nothing has changed, the U.S. and State courts now lose their proof of immunity, and are now all seen to not be courts of competent jurisdiction, but are actually knowingly and intentionally complicit in criminal political hate crime that comes in the form of religious persecution against anyone using scientific reasoning and scientific political facts of Nature as the basis of their Liberty and Rights, for a claim in a court to secure those rights.  This is what has happened to Paul Guthrie with this ruling by Barker. 

In their prosecution by some future lawful government, imagine how the tables would be turned on Barker and Stinson.  They would have to seek evidence of a State citizen father who claimed his offspring and made a reporting.  But wait, all of Obama's records are sealed and no evidence is obtainable!  But Barker and Stinson have the right for compulsory evidence to exonerate them, a right guaranteed under the Constitution's Amendments, right?  Now they want to follow the Constitution when it suits them.  Well I guess it is just too bad that you cannot see any Obama records, because he was the President according to you, Barker and Stinson, and he overrules your due process rights and can keep his records shut.  I guess they will have to admit that he was not a President in order to get at the records, and then they indict themselves for fraud and treason by their admission!  But without the records they have no defense.  And Barker thinks she and Stinson are immune? 

 

How the government of King Obama, defined by these two rulings by Barker and Stinson, and its monarchy religious nature creates an unequal class society which did not exist before Obama and was prevented by the natural born Citizen Clause definition being derived from the State citizen father. 

Under English Common Law, which is life under a monarchy religious form of government --religious because the source of authority for the government is not the political laws of Nature but is just arbitrary and unrestrained subjective belief and opinion-- there arises separate and distinct political classes that are inherently unequal, because the basis of the rights of the different classes can be seen to not be based upon a common universal natural order or law, but are instead just based upon opinion, bigotry, and prejudice, derived from an elitist attitude that the King may bestow rights and privileges unequally among the population of subjects, favoring one artificially created political class over another.  This is exactly what has now happened under Obama and thanks to these fraudulent rulings by these two supposed judges Barker and Stinson. 

Before Obama and Barker and Stinson, there were not different artificial political classes based upon sex or race, and things were fair and equal.  Before Obama, there were just two natural political classes, naturalized citizens and natural born Citizens.  The rights of each naturally-occurring political class were based upon what class of citizen you are, not based upon race or sex.  Both classes had all of the same rights with only one exception, that being that only a nbC could qualify for President.  This restriction was absolutely necessary in order to prevent a monarchy form of religious government, where the People are not politically free with Political Liberty but are instead subject to religious persecution if they challenge the legitimacy of the King. 

Now there are three groups of unequal citizens and persons who all may compete politically for the Office of President, but the male State citizen is now the persecuted minority class of citizen.  The three class divisions are now the male State citizens, the female State citizens, and the male citizens of foreign countries, and all three of these groups must now compete with each other in the society, and if the male citizen of the State complains about it, he is subject to loss of his rights and religious persecution.  Without the involvement or consent of the male State citizen, the female State citizen is now able to bypass the males from the States and bypass those males' natural political consent authority to create a natural born citizen of a State who will thus be a natural born Citizen of the United States who can be President.  The males from the States never get the opportunity to claim the offspring and make a reporting, because that privilege, which used to be a recognized and protected natural political right for the native male State citizen, in order that the consent for a representative President will be obtained from the native population of males, has now been given to a foreign male by the female U.S. citizen.  This is contrary to the natural law that the female cannot give or transfer rights that she does not even possess, nor are hers to transfer, to a foreign male for him to create a natural born citizen of a State.  The only exception is if she is a queen, then she might be able to grant political rights to others, and then they are not natural political rights, but just legal privilege political rights that are the privilege of those with Titles of Nobility.  As to that foreign male, how can he claim and report his offspring to a State or federal government agent of the U.S., since that is not the appropriate venue for him to report to?  By proper law, he has to claim his offspring and report the fact to his own native jurisdiction, not to the jurisdiction of some State of the union of States called the United States.  That female, who does not even have to claim or make a reporting, had no authority to grant and transfer the protected unalienable natural political rights of the class of male State citizens onto some male from a foreign country who is not even U.S. citizen.  Unalienable political rights are not physically transferable anyway, and by definition the rights of the class only belong to the members of the class, i.e., the male citizens of the States, not to the males of foreign countries who are not citizens of a State of the United States.  This proves that both Obama's father and his mother were in effect granted what amounts to a Title of Nobility, in order that their son could be pronounced as bestowed with the legal privilege of being called a natural born citizen or native of more than one country at the time of birth, so that he can qualify as the offspring of a State citizen father without one, in order that he could become 'President' of the U.S.  Such functional Titles of Nobility are in total violation of the Constitution's two clauses that are supposed to prevent this, and in violation of the natural political order.  This situation is a whopping lie of Biblical proportions and consequences, making Obama a religious monarchic dictator, and veritably making Obama the Prince of Lies who rules with deception and FEAR as his source of authority.  He does not serve out of love, reason, truth, law, and consent as was established by our Founding Fathers, nor by the Laws of Nature or Natural Law, and not by the Constitution.  America, you have asked for a King to rule over you.  Check your Bibles, the Jews will tell you this is a very bad thing.  All Hell breaks loose on Earth whenever this happens. 

 

Part II

The Analysis 

Now let's briefly go over the ridiculous ruling from Barker.  I am not going to go into everything as that would take hours and ten more pages at least.  Her first two parts, I and II, are just a summation and telling of events which are essentially correct although devoid of essential details.  But then the conclusion at the end of part II, that our suit does not pass scrutiny, is a lie, which is then seen to be exposed as a lie by the following sections and reasons given by Barker, starting with section III. 

Section III Analysis 

Now that we know that we are dealing with religious fanatics who are insane and delusional megalomaniacs engaging in Nazi propaganda techniques of personally and criminally attacking the character and reputation of a person plaintiff, and criminalizing them based upon their national identity as offspring of State citizen fathers and their unwillingness to accept the current religious viewpoint that Obama is a President, we can properly see what is going on.  These religious rulings are issuing from these judges in order to provide themselves with the illusion of legitimacy that they are actual Article III judges and courts of competent jurisdiction who are about doing the daily lawful duties of a judge and court, an illusion that is necessary in order to claim an immunity for their actions and be able to deny standing for claims against Obama, and to deny actions against unlawful judges who are not Article III judges under Obama or under any non-nbC President.  Thus we see the motive for the ruling to come down the way it does. 

Notice how her language starts out with saying that the claim against Stinson is a "complete non-starter".  There is no basis in law for this ruling under Obama.  Her statements are only true under the automatic presumption of immunity which only exists if these are courts under the Constitution, which they are not, not as long as Obama or a non-nbC occupies the Office of President.  She has completely ignored and missed the entire painstakingly elaborated point of my pleadings, which should have made this abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain who can read English.  My grammar is not that bad.  Everyone knows you cannot ordinarily sue a judge, for heaven’s sake.  She is attacking my credibility like I am a 6 year old.  This is the court attacking the credibility of the witness, which is Paul Guthrie, who has provided objective and conclusive proof and sworn testimony which shows the court that Stinson is not even a lawful Judge because the Article III courts were rendered incompetent by Congress and the 50 State Secretaries of State, and that she is acting purely in an unofficial capacity as an ordinary citizen gone rogue who has set up her own little Queendom, and is dispensing religious advisory opinions to protect the monarchy government and claim a bogus immunity and then unlawfully dismissing cases upon that basis and labeling such plaintiffs liars, criminals, and fools.  She cannot possibly be acting as a judge in an official capacity that is immune because the natural born Citizen status and requirement for the Office of President defines the U.S. and State courts to be native courts of competent jurisdiction.  

What a neat trick, have a dictator who is not nbC come to power, and then the judges can just claim there is no issue, because upon their political authority alone, which they have none of as a judge because only a citizen has political authority under our Constitution, not judges, they dictate the political condition that Obama is a President thus he is not a dictator and thus they are courts of Competent Jurisdiction and thus immune.  And they deny that the judges themselves are not being political or dictators either under these conditions. 

What is the point of having a Constitution then, if the judges and candidates and Congress can just do anything they want, redefine legal terms according to their own presumed authority and subjective beliefs and opinions, and on that basis, set up their own political dictatorships and alter the form of government at will and run their own illegal operation and claim they are immune?  It is so outrageous.  I go to a judge and inform her that we are under dictatorship and the judge says no you are not because she falsely presumes that she has some superior authority greater than me the citizen to determine if I am under dictatorship.  Apparently no one in the country but Guthrie understands or comprehends that if you have to rely upon a judge to tell you if you are under dictatorship, then how do you know if you are or are not, even if a judge tells you that you are not?  Proving that Barker and Stinson, or any judge, does not have the authority to dispute with the facts of Reality, as explained by Guthrie or the Natural Law Theory of the Father, and must just accept the facts and apply the law, which they are not doing either, applying the facts or law.  Barker and Stinson cannot even see that their own behavior is dictatorial and monarchal, and their very actions prove Guthrie's case has standing and that nbC is defined by the citizen father and we are now a monarchy with courts who operate based upon religious opinions and religious persecution of objective thinkers and scientists like Paul Guthrie. 

Under Obama’s rule, these are courts of foreign jurisdiction that have no authority to even decide a case without first removing Obama, and thus there is absolutely no immunity at all.  How can either Barker or Stinson even claim to be representatives of the People if they cannot identify who the People are by their natural born Citizen status, which obviously they cannot determine because all the evidence shows that they believe that Obama is a President instead of what he actually is which is a dictator King as defined by the Constitution and political Law of Nature.  You cannot even begin to apply the law in a court unless you can identify the status of the parties before the court, and obviously both Barker and Stinson lack the capacity to determine this because they do not comprehend the difference between adopted naturalized citizens who are the offspring of foreign citizen fathers, and non-adopted native natural born offspring of native State citizen fathers.  We still have not had our case adjudicated before a proper Article III court, because now we know that none exist as long as Obama is in power, and the judges are cowards and delusional and in a position that they must declare Obama to be a President and dismiss in order to protect themselves with a non-substantive illusion of immunity. 

All the authorities cited in Part III are invalid out of the gate because they are all case law that came out of a previous native jurisdiction that had a natural born Citizen for President, so they are irrelevant and do not even apply to cases adjudicated by judges under the Obama government which is not the government of the People.  Barker and Stinson are using case law from a previous valid jurisdiction as if those authorities now also apply to Barkers and Stinson's rulings like nothing has changed at all and it is just business as usual with a valid Constitutional government and valid President and all previous authorities under a different government of consent now applies as authorities under the non-consensual government being unlawfully maintained by judges.  This is one aspect of the fraudulent nature of Barker’s ruling.  On the one hand she wants us to believe that Obama is a President and not a King and thus they have immunity and that Paul Guthrie is the fraud, but then she fills her brief from Section III to the end with bogus case law, which is either irrelevant because it is case law from a previous native de jure jurisdiction with a nbC President, or due to being case law adjudicated during Obama’s reign.  The cites from the previous legitimate jurisdiction are not even applicable to the facts in our case, a case which would not even be happening and before Barker under those authorities cited if Obama was a nbC, a point that has gone right over Barker’s head and renders her ruling and authorities moot and facially invalid, and proves that Guthrie has standing, and both tries and proves his case without it even needing trial and she cannot even see it and that this is what she has done.  She believes that she has found our case to be without merit and frivolous and that she has dismissed the case, when in fact her actions are a resounding indictment of Obama, the Courts, Barker, and Stinson and proves Guthrie's case entirely.  This is why I said when we filed before she even responded that it makes no difference how Barker rules, we have already won and proved our case either way, it is just a matter of how will the eventual realization of the victory play out over time. 

Or the authority cited is like Sibley v. Obama, or some other case adjudicated during Obama’s reign, which is fraudulent case law on its face and proves objectively and conclusively that the court is relying upon fraud in their judgments in order to render fraudulent rulings.  You cannot have a proper ruling from the foreign jurisdiction court of Obama when the judges fill their briefs with authorities that are taken from previous de jure jurisdictions that are now foreign to the court and to our native Constitution, or with a combination of previous de jure rulings that are moot and actually prove Guthrie's case not the state’s case, and also filled with current de facto rulings, being as the current jurisdiction is de facto and unlawful.  That is the entire nature of Barker’s total brief and this is particularly apparent in Parts III and IV.  She even ignores and raises the point that I already addressed and settled in the reply to her show cause order regarding the appearance that I was just mad and suing the judge as a vengeful or angry act.  I knew she was going to say this because I already knew that was one aspect of why judges have immunity in the first place, and that on the face of it, the refiling of my suit before Barker might have that appearance, but that is not the case.  I told her to be warned that there is a much deeper legal reason why Stinson and any judge who does not follow the Constitution under Obama are not immune in the least. This is one historic time when they need to be rattled and worried by being sued.  Better to fess up now in a civil trial and avoid a criminal prosecution down the road.  She chose to ignore the truth and law and instead attack my character by dismissing me as some angry lunatic who goes around suing judges that Guthrie does not agree with, and as a result, a future nbC President and administration could arrest, bring to trial, and sentence both Barker and Stinson to execution for High Treason.  I tried to warn them, so that they could honor the truth and protect not only the country, but their reputations and their very lives, but they do not want to listen.  They had a choice to be either a hero or a traitor, and they chose to side with the Lie.  Now they are not protected if some righteously indignant future nbC President wants to clean house and make a political statement at the expense of these supposed judges.  They will have no legal defense and the nbC President would be totally within his rights and duty under the law to arrest them and gain all the political brownie points he or she could get out of a conviction of corrupt treasonous judges. 

 

Section IV Analysis 

Barker really turns up the fraud in Part IV.  She calls me a fraud and criminal by implication, through backing Stinson's bogus rulings with familiar fraudulent authorities, while denying that Stinson, Obama, and the other defendants are the frauds or criminals.  It is either one or the other.  If my claim were not true, that Obama and Stinson and the other defendants are frauds and criminals engaging in political criminal activity that is a religious hate crime against males from the States, then it would be Paul Guthrie who is the criminal outlaw that is hateful and insane.  Thus we see the politics of personal destruction, a Nazi power grab propaganda technique, not the rule of law.  Notice her reliance upon fraudulent cases Sibley, Taitz, Berg, Kerchner, Apuzzo, even after I told her that my case was not the same as theirs and they had it all wrong.  Those cases are off point and totally moot, and are also moot because they are cases adjudicated under Obama, which are not even valid case law as they are from the wrong foreign jurisdiction and do not apply to cases dealing with a President who is not the offspring of a State citizen father.  Those cases are already fraudulent case law due to Obama not being a nbC, and again Barker is just fraudulently asserting, due to denial of the facts and law in evidence, just asserting or claiming or declaring King Obama to be a President, or 'the President', which he is legally neither, and it is not under Barker or Stinson's authority to declare him to be one, which is a prohibited advisory opinion. 

Again, we see the fraud of how they deny that Obama is a King, and they declare him to be a natural born Citizen by default by declaring him to be a President, or the President, thus claiming that there is no case in controversy.  Because as everyone knows you must first have a basis for injury in order to have a case in controversy in order to have standing, thus they again dismiss for frivolous or lack of standing which is BOGUS, based upon the fraud of declaring a religious opinion that a King is a President, that naturalized citizen is synonymous with natural born Citizen, when in reality, natural born is the opposite of adopted, not synonymous with adopted.  I addressed and explained all of this in the Reply to the show cause and she has just ignored it all. 

The proof of the total fraud are the remaining authorities cited that are not even based upon the Natural Law Theory of the Father, and I already told the court that those cases are without standing and not to be compared with my case because those cases do not have standing because they have no facts that can establish standing, but my case does.  She completely ignores and misses the point and fraudulently attempts to apply the cases that I already have taken away from the court by showing the court that they are moot and don't apply.  Further evidence that Barker is delusional and totally missing the point of the case can be seen when she calls the courts, courts of competent jurisdiction, which was my entire point and argument that they are not courts of competent jurisdiction.  This fact is why Stinson and now Barker are not immune, and neither is Obama or the rest, and he is not a President.  None of them are acting in any lawful official capacity.  They are all just rogue citizens at this point, running their own private enterprise government and pretending to be representatives who are acting in an official capacity so that they can claim to be immune. 

Then you get to the short entry of judgment of dismissal and things make no sense at all and are contradictory.  Barker dismisses with prejudice regarding Stinson, presumably based upon the fraudulent assertion of absolute immunity, then dismisses without prejudice against the rest of the plaintiffs, which includes federal judges as defendants, the same as Stinson who should be just as immune, according to Barker’s reasoning, so that makes no sense at all.  Why didn't she dismiss with prejudice for the other defendants also, since she has determined that Obama is a President or the President, and under such a fact (were it true) there would be no basis for an injury or standing.  Why would I have cause to sue the other defendants then, which includes other federal judges?  Even her 'wrinkle' is wrong, but she does not see it.  It is not even worth going into that.  Let's move on to more important matters and the way forward. 

 

PART III 

The Way Forward 

Unfortunately there can be no Appeal of Barker's ruling, because based upon her ruling, we have been told, and now we know, that there are no courts of competent jurisdiction within the United States or State courts to which anyone can bring a case that will have standing as long as Obama or any non-nbC person occupies the Office of President.  In order to have an Appeal, you first must have a valid case adjudicated before a court of competent jurisdiction, and that has not happened yet for anyone in the U.S. in the last 4 plus years including Paul Guthrie.  And even though we have two rulings from courts of incompetent jurisdiction that are invalid on the face due to being a product from the wrong jurisdiction courts, and also invalid on the face as a matter of law and facts, where would we even go to find an Appeals court of competent jurisdiction within the United States as long as Obama is in power?  Also, due to these two rulings, we now have an opportunity that did not exist prior.  According to the rules, we could bring an original brand new suit directly in the Supreme Court, because these rulings now define the current judges and government officials to be foreign ambassador occupiers who are injuring natural born Citizens of the United States.  This allows us to bypass the Appeals court, but first we have to solve the problem that the Supreme Court itself is not a court of competent jurisdiction.  And now it is unsafe for Paul Guthrie to bring such a suit while living in the U.S.  Paul Guthrie has been stripped of his national identity and citizenship rights as the offspring of a State citizen father and declared a resident alien, resident because he lives in the former territory of the former native government, and alien because he is now alien to the new United States, an enemy of the United States as the United States is now defined by Congress, Obama, the State Secretaries of State, and the judges, and not as it is defined by the Constitution. 

 

Clearing the Fog of War 

In the final analysis, we must view our previous experiences in the light in which they were created.  The entire point of the preliminary exercise with these two filings, conducted over the winter months when I had time off from my work, was that we needed to conduct a stress test upon the system, so that it would respond with data that we could objectively analyze.  We needed this information, because all who came before us had not explained the proper definition, and thus the judgments and data from other cases could not objectively tell us where the battlefield was and who the enemy soldiers were, and what the battle specifically is that we need to fight, and in what venue and way we need to fight the fight.  In essence, it was like we were fighting a war in the fog and not knowing if we were even engaging the correct enemy on the correct battlefield in the correct battle in the correct theater of operations where the front lines are, or using the correct weapons for the job at hand. 

Thanks to our efforts with the Natural Law Theory of the Father, the fog has now cleared, and we can better see the battlefield and the nature of the battle and the proper theater of operation and what weapons need to be brought to bear on the situation and where the actual front line is.  Now we can see that the fight is one of science versus religion and rational sanity versus a mental incapacity to take cognizance of pertinent real facts that are essential for a judge or any sane person to properly function.  Therefore, the battle needs to move out of the courts’ religious jurisdiction of propaganda and into the medical science jurisdiction of knowledge and fact.  Any next suit must have expert clinical psychiatric doctors to certify that the judges are functionally insane and Paul Guthrie is sane and rational and that natural born Citizen is clearly the result of males who must give their consent to create them and then claim the offspring and make a reporting and it is not even up to the female.  The mental credibility of the Judges must be attacked, like they are attacking mine, and they must be exposed for their religious opinions that causes a mental incapacity of not being able to tell the difference between a King and a President, which disqualifies them as judges.  If you can rout just one judge of King Obama's army by this method, then the rest of the judges will panic and rout and lose their religious views and be forced to adopt political science in order to comprehend that Obama is not a nbC and to comprehend the Constitution, as they are clearly illiterate and unable to read and comprehend this document that was written to be understandable to all.  Then Obama loses his army of supporters, his foot soldier judges, and then he will collapse, because at this point, that is all that is supporting him in power and keeping him there. 

 

The Futility of Change from Within 

One thing I have now learned, is that it is very unlikely that you will ever get very far in the United States with trying to convince the American public or an American judge of the true definition and meaning of natural born Citizen, or convince them that Americans are under a monarchy dictatorship and behaving like a religious monarchy government and are being ruled over by a King that everyone just calls a President, and that the public is going around religiously persecuting with political hate crimes against people like Paul Guthrie.  This message is much too psychologically shocking and threatening to the egos and self-images of nearly all U.S. citizens and Americans.  This message threatens those average Americans directly in both their Patriotism and in their self-esteem as believing themselves to be mentally competent thinkers who have knowledge and believing themselves to be good people who would never hate or commit political crimes against the native citizens.  They look stupid and foolish and criminal in their own eyes when you expose the truth to them, and thus they go into immediate psychological denial with a reaction of immense psychopathic hostility to attack and squelch the messenger of truth and reality.  Whenever I try to approach and expose the truth to a member of the general public, like when I am outside vending at an art show, the reaction is very hostile and dismissive, and leads to political persecution of my scientific views by religious nut cases, where no facts of reality can break their fantasy of living in a lawful Republic, who cannot accept that the U.S. could ever be a dictatorship and is actually not currently under a rule of law or the Constitution.  The denial of “it could never happen here” has blinded them.  The majority of Americans cannot accept that they and most other Americans are much too ignorant to know whether they are under a monarchy king dictatorship or under a representative Republic with a President.  They think that the courts are the proper arbiters and advisors of any technical controversy in law, believing that they must run to a judge, for the judge to tell them, and if the judge says that you are not under a dictatorship, it is like "No, I am not under a dictatorship because a judge said so."  Incredible.  This need to protect the ego and national identity by refusing to accept new information that conflicts with their religiously-held view, is essential for the citizens to prop up their self-esteem and self-image, and so prevents judges from seeing that we have standing, and prevents the majority public from demanding the arrest of Obama, and prevents them from treating natural born Citizens with kindness, or even respecting the honorable truth-teller whose discovery could save their Republic. 

A very good example of this is what happened to me the day after I got Barker’s ruling in the mail which was on a Friday.  The very next day was our first sales show since our winter down-time, at a local Farmer’s Market.  It was the first time we had tried that venue.  I made the mistake of discussing the case and ruling and my scientific views with the customers and fellow vendors, and as a result, the organizer of the Farmer's Market forced me to pack up and leave or be arrested for my 'political activity' which is not permitted according to the Farmer's Market (but which rule is not in the application or rules of the Market). 

First of all, my activity is not political, it is educational, and I told them this, but they are insane.  The only persons engaging in political activity was the Farmer’s Market organizers and the vendors and the customers who support Obama and argue with Paul Guthrie.  They have no right to argue with me, as their argument is not protected free speech under the Constitution, their speech being actually support for fascism and the overthrow of the rightful government and an incitement to do violence against Paul Guthrie and natural born Citizens.  They have no case on their side, and my case is one of rights that are supposed to be protected which have unlawfully been taken away by fraud Obama and fraud voters and supporters of Obama, and I am just informing people of this situation, which is both my right and duty.  The relating of the facts of reality is not something that is a controversy, unless psycho lunatics make it into a controversy through their support for the King, which is what happened, and so I was threatened with arrest and made to pack up and leave.  So you see, it is they who are the ones engaging in political activity by driving me off, and their political activity is a Hate Crime against those of us who claim our rights of consent to be derived from our State citizen fathers.

 

What You Can Do 

As providence would have it, I got an order to answer and appear for jury duty in my local county State circuit court.  Now that we have these rulings, I cannot serve on a jury because no State or federal courts are courts of competent jurisdiction.  Where is the defendant going to appeal his case to, since there are no valid de jure State courts or Supreme Court as long as a non-nbC occupies the Office of President?  What is to prevent a future nbC President and future State governor under the Constitution from legitimately saying that all the convictions at the State level under Obama must be thrown out and the cases retried?  It would not even be double jeopardy, because the government could just argue that the judgments were from a foreign jurisdiction and not recognized, so there had never been any first trials under the native de jure jurisdiction.  Therefore no U.S. citizen can serve on a jury who has knowledge of the Natural Law Theory of the Father or can understand that naturalized citizens are the adopted offspring of foreign non-citizen fathers, and the natives are the natural born Citizens who are not adopted but are claimed by their State citizen fathers and reported to the government.  This would insert and spread the truth and jam up the courts real good, if everyone who is called for jury duty had knowledge and would do what I am doing.  I have written a letter and sent it back to the court with the jury form not filled out and attached.  You may copy and use excerpts of my example for your own reply to jury duty if you get one: You are hereby put on notice. 

Now we will see if they retaliate against me, which would be providing more proof of religious persecution.  It is as if Nature is providing a way, even if Barker and Stinson won't.  I am now totally innocent, summoned to court to be a jurist, and as a jurist I am now instructing them that they are not courts of competent jurisdiction, and I am being provided with another opportunity, a free opportunity, to enlighten a judge.  Now what is the government going to do with Paul Guthrie, since they are bringing me into their presumed jurisdiction?  If they ignore me, then I have proven my case and freed myself from their foreign jurisdiction.  If they retaliate, they are in big trouble and prove my case again and cause me damages for possible future recovery if we can get a nbC President, but I could add the damages to the suit to bring to the Supreme Court. 

I don't have much time now that I’m in my work season, but we have all the time we need to work on the suit before the Supreme Court, as we are not under any time constraints now that we can see that an Appeal is not a legally-viable option at this time, because we would have the same problem that the Appeals court is not a court of competent jurisdiction.  This defect would have to be remedied with Obama's removal before they could even take the Appeal, and we can surmise that that is not going to happen.  But even if they admitted the defect and removed Obama first, then they could dismiss the Appeal by saying that I have not had a case adjudicated before the proper de jure government yet, so I would have to start all over again anyway. 

I will keep people informed as more things develop.  This effort to restore the Republic is just beginning.  No one is giving up or quitting, but we have to go with the flow.  As I’ve explained here, the scientific method of probing the courts has yielded very useful results.  We have actually gotten further than anyone else has, in gathering real data about the situation.  Now, in my humble opinion, we just have to evolve the effort to the next level, and that is what I am working on. 

I invite and welcome you to become more involved, to help in whatever capacity you are able, and to financially support the spearhead of this effort.  Thank you for being the few rational, honorable, and kind Americans who stand for our original natural-born Republic.