DONOFRIO NOT INVOLVED WITH NATIONAL PRESS CLUB EVENT ON DEC. 8, 2008
ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.
I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.
Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide. The event has nothing to do with me.
World Net Daily has their story wrong. I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event.
December 6, 2008 at 12:56 AM
My dear Leo what a blessing you are to all Americans, I am a Native American of the Delaware TRIBE tURTLE IN Penna! i AM MOST impressed with you and all the hard hard work you have done may you always be the shinning star that you are!!! Your ongoing and trusted friend, Rev. Charles! PS ARE YOU RELAITED TO ANY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS? as you surely act and THINK as one>
[I'm of Italian, Irish, Polish and French descent...a true American mutt.
]
December 6, 2008 at 12:57 AM
[Ed. Note - Excellent question. Electors must cast their votes according to the Constitution. There appears to be a conflict of interest. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would apply and trump the Electors pledge.
This argument is currently being made in the Keys case. And it's a good argument, but I don't agree with their overall strategy. I doubt, due to their having not brought the case directly to the California Supreme Court, that the case will be heard before December 15 when the Electors vote. Once the electors vote, the point is moot.
The Supreme Court of California could restrain the electors as that court has original jurisdiction over Writs of Mandamus for cases of vast public interest when a pressing time element is involved.
Suits can be brought seeking restraint of electors on this basis. But I can't advise as to each state's laws. And it's late in the game now.]
Hi Leo,
Thank you for all your good work.
I think might I have a different angle on this.
I understand some states have laws which make it a misdemeanor crime if an elector does not cast their vote in accordance with the popular vote. If an elector votes against the popular vote and is prosecuted for it under that law, could they then bring up their oath to protect and defend the constitution and subsequently the ineligibility of the candidate (Obama or McCain) issue as grounds for an appeal? Seems that under the current circumstances that the oath to protect and defend the constitution is in direct conflict with such elector specific laws which bind an elector to the popular vote.
Stephen
December 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Gotcha.Noted.You’ve gotta be prudent with the media hoopla.You avoided being burned by the charlatan Lan,and you are learning.Probably a good thing you haven’t been on Foghorn Jones show.Not that he isn’t sincere,but he’s a sensationalist,and his guests are red flaggers at times.I caught a few minutes to see if he’d mention your case.Yep,just to say it’s no big deal.He went on to interview a guy named Paris[see video on Paris].And this is important news?The Constitution is hanging on a thread,and the sheeple are glad the gas iprices are down,and the tv is in High Definition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJngTBaVHDA p.s. Plains Radio is pretty good.Intelligent listeners.Usually I tune out to shows at the call-in periods.But with you,Cort and Orly I’ve listened to the whole shows.
December 6, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Leo,
National Press Club, what’s that? What for?
[Ed. note - The other cases I guess, but not mine. I don't want the media putting my case in with the other cases. So please get the word out on the blogs all of you readers here partiticipate in. It has nothing to do with my case and any grouping in of my case with other cases will give a false impression to the public of what this case is about.]
If scotus refers the case back to the state court to prove eligibility (good possibility, since it is their responsibility), is it possible that the supreme court justices may still motion to stay the national election, until the eligibility issue is satisfied? (of all the many possibilities)
[Ed. Note - It's possible they may do that, but only as to verifying state issues, like where he was born. If a BC is then produced saying he was born in Hawaii, which I believe to be true, then it would come back to SCOTUS for the Article 2, Section 1 argument. They could hold off on that until it's absolutely nnecessary. This is a possibility.]
Good job, it’s not over until it’s over! Thanks!
December 6, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Leo,
Right, Leo. You just need to be ready for the SCOTUS….the press can wait. They get it wrong most of the time anyway. Bless the hearts of the ones that are real journalists, with standards. Will continue to pray for you to have wisdom and the right words. Your cause is a just one. May God’s blessing be on your case. It matters to all of us. I’m just terribly sad that so many don’t understand how this fraud will impact their lives. The MSM is to blame in a very big way for their orchestrated effort to keep Americans ignorant! Shame on them for their silence. They have forgotten that we are America! Make the press wait! Don’t let them make it into some kind of entertainment. This IS real not childish Hollywood. It’s not about ratings. It’s about our very existence as a unique nation and our Founders were wise. Those that don’t understand that or respect the Constitution, actually mock it, do not deserve to serve as President or serve in any capacity. I hope our nation learns from this mess and we have better days ahead….by the grace of God! Have peace in your heart.
December 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM
(Please contact McCain electors and tell them to vote for Hillary!)
To the McCain electors,
If Barack Obama continues to evade the eligibility question, then on Dec. 15th all of the McCain electors should protest by voting for Hillary Clinton. If they stick to voting for McCain, then Obama will obviously become President since he has more than enough electors. (Also, McCain may not even be eligible himself)
BUT, if word gets out that the McCain electors will vote for Hillary for President, then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we can get enough Democratic electors to defect and vote for Hillary instead. That way, the integrity of the Constitution will be protected, and Republicans will show that they put principle above all else. (Plus, a President Hillary Clinton will be less effective if she wins under these circumstances)
This would PROVE that Republicans place principle above politics. Hillary Clinton is no doubt a natural-born citizen, and conservatives will prove their strict adherence to and love of the Constitution by supporting an eligible candidate for office (even though we all disagree with her on the issues, of course).
Please consider supporting this option and spreading the word to ALL of the McCain electors. They absolutely MUST vote for an eligible candidate.
December 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM
It is a shame when we can’t go on a show or attend an event that is considered “mainstream” because the risk is so high that such an appearance will be malevolently leveraged by forces that are not interested in the truth, our country or her Constitution.
When a true patriot has to be careful who he talks to and what he says and when he must be continually concerned about how his motives will be construed and reported, it is a sad time indeed for this country.
December 6, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Wow Leo you really need to get some sleep too. Got to keep that head clear you know
)
December 6, 2008 at 5:49 AM
POLITICAL CARTOON –
I made a political cartoon frame surrounding the topic of Donofrio’s argument.
Here is a direct link:
Transparency
December 6, 2008 at 5:56 AM
POLITICAL CARTOON – VIEW AT 768×1024
I made a political cartoon frame surrounding the topic of Donofrio’s argument.
Here is a direct link:
Transparency
December 6, 2008 at 6:46 AM
I found this on a site that I thought I had saved to my favorites but can not find it now:
John Jay wrote to George Washington, who was president of the Convention. In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).
First, the issue of foreign influence is a key theme of the famous Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Second, these issues were directly addressed in a statement by Charles Pinckney in the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so “as to make it impossible … for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.” The Founders “knew well,” he said
that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….
Thus, in Hamilton’s view, the problem of foreign influence was solved by the Electoral College. He does not even mention the presidential eligibility clause. In contrast, Pinckney sees a role for the eligibility clause, but this role is clearly a secondary one. In particular, this clause promotes “attachment to the country” but is not needed to guard against “foreign influence and gold.”
December 6, 2008 at 8:33 AM
This is a letter written by Senator Mel Martinez concerning Obama’s eligibility. I would say it’s a good thing he is not running for re-election.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/obama-SenMartin-Ltr-Dec-08.htm
December 6, 2008 at 8:56 AM
UPDATED:
Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/2008/12032008.htm
The date now says Dec 3, 2008. I could be mistaken but when I looked at this article the other day, it had a date from 2007.
December 6, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I SWEAR I’M NOT REPOSTING THIS JUST TO BEG TO BE SEEN.
I just started up my own blog. I’m including the cartoon Transparency there. I’m currently working on another post relating to the Natural Born Citizen issue and Leo Donofrio.
Check out the cartoon for amusement.
PolitiCode
December 6, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).
December 6, 2008 at 9:37 AM
[...] full comment [...]
December 6, 2008 at 9:51 AM
[Ed. Note - How would I go about putting out such a press release? Anybody? I'm all ears.]
While the reporting from the mainstream media has been either shoddy or downright misleading and insulting — failing to distinguish a “non-partisan” lawsuit which targets the eligibility of THREE candidates and not solely Obama — it has its roots in a larger reality.
Dan Rather’s general “politics” are something he’s always worn on his sleeve, but it’s instructive to see what he has to say about the larger context of what the media has become as a function of its multinational and multi-dimensioned “ownership structure”
It doesn’t bode well for an informed citizenry when news gets “spiked” (the old deBorchgrave term) and stories go unreported.
I think you are right to keep yourself out of any dog-and-pony show events at the National Press Club, especially if the event organizer hasn’t even sought a confirmation that the people he claims are going to be there are actually interested in attending. It’s the height of irresponsibility to be putting out a Press Release listing three names without there having been any “clearance” by those people.
I wonder if you should consider, however, putting out some kind of a Press Release which points out that Donofrio v. Wells is a clearly distinguishable lawsuit which is not centered on a birth certificate nor is it centered on just one candidate. Journalists who have only their own laziness to blame will often take a P.R. and almost let it get printed verbatim, in lieu of actually having to write something themselves.
December 6, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Mr. Donofrio, May I have permission to include the following:
” At Barack Obama’s web site fightthesmears.com, the following admission:
Factcheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ ”
Read that last line again
“That same act governed the states of Obama Sr.’s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.
Barack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.
We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.
We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t’t quite enough to let one serve as President).
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:
1. BORN in the United States
OR
2. NATURALIZED in the United States
Either could serve in the Senate or House but NEITHER can serve as President because they are only citizens. Not natural born citizens. They receive the same type of citizenship in different ways.
A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.
A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.
A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.
All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President.
So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?
A person with two US citizens as parents. ”
In my presentation to Congressman Tom Cole concerning Barack Obama and why he is not eligible to become the next President of the United States.
December 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM
[...] 12/6/08 10:23 AM: It appears that the plaintiff in the second suit will not be present at the press conference on Monday. The original source where I obtained this information was [...]
December 6, 2008 at 10:43 AM
[Ed - Note, thank you for that correction]
I posted a retraction on my blog about this press conference. My source for this info was not WND, but rather a press release at Market Watch. Just thought you’d like to know.
I’ve been following the Berg case for a few months, but only recently checked further into your case. There’s still more for me understand, but I want to thank you for taking a stand on this.
I believe there are A LOT of Americans (if they knew this was even happening) would be outraged that this issue has gone this far without the proper attention and action. While there will probably be some who don’t care about what the Constitution says…they just want their guy…or they don’t want to rock the boat, if the Supreme Court does not take the necessary action on this, the patriots of this country will surely rise up.
December 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM
LEO KEEP FIGHTING GOD HAS BLESSED YOU WITH A FIGHTERS SPIRIT YOU HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE ON BOARD THAN YOU MIGHT THINK. PAUL THE ROMAN CITIZEN STOP A MOB ABOUT TO KILL HIM BY SIMPLY TELLING THEM HE WAS A ROMAN CITIZEN NOW THATS BIRTH POWER. THE BOOK OF ACTS NIV ACTS 22 -22 TO END OF CHAPTER.
December 6, 2008 at 11:28 AM
First rule of Press Releases: Keep it to one page
Second rule of Press Releases: Provide a Contact’s name, phone, e-mail so that any reporter’s questions can be directed to someone for appropriate follow-up.
Distribution can be via FAX to
#1 the “usual suspects” who might be providing coverage of the National Press Club event (local newspapers like Washington Post and Washington Times ???) and network affiliated or indie TV stations
and/or
#2 national-coverage outlets such as AP and UPI and Reuters (print media wire services) and the major networks’ “intake FAX lines” along with CNN and MSNBC.
I’m not sure if the Press Release can/should be distributed at the National Press Club since I am assuming you will want to distinguish the New Jersey case from all the others, inasmuch as its focus NEVER WAS directed at
only ONE candidate
nor
compelling production (except perhaps “incidentally”) of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE original document.
As an attorney, I have been struck by how even-handed your approach to the central issue was. In addition, laymen are deluding themselves if they think that a “sense of the Senate” resolution like S. 511 is any kind of “final word” about the status of John McCain. It’s a joke — and grossly misleading, since it cites to only the 1790 Naturalization Act and totally ignores the 1795 “repeal” of that Act which stripped away the words “natural born” …. totally a lopsided presentation of “known law” which, if proferred in a court of law by a lawyer, might have earned sanctions on somebody for failing to bring all relevant legal authority forward.
As a NJ resident, I have been appalled to discover how non-existent the screening process for eligibility is such that even a non-citizen like Roger Calero found his name placed on a ballot.
I have to be away from computer / e-mail the rest of today and part of tomorrow but feel free to get in touch by e-mail. I’ll be back Sunday evening to check.
Controlling the information flow about what your case is about is probably most important if SCOTUS should decide they’re going to take this issue up, since it is so clearly distinguishable in its approach from other suits, except Cort’s.
December 6, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS EVENT SINCE THE INCEPTION WITH LEO AND BERG AND HAVE NEVER POSTED ONCE. I AM SICK TO MY STOMACH OVER THE SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THIS COUNTRY. GEORGE NORI IS A CONTROLLED PUPPIT AS WELL IT SEEMS. HE WOULD PUT ALIEN AFFAIRS IN FRONT OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS IT REMINDS ME OF OUR GOVERMENT AS WELL. I MUST SAY THE AMERICANS WHO VOTED THEMSELVES GIFTS FROM THE GOVERMENT,THRU OBAMA ARE THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THIS COUNTRY AND EVRYONE HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND DO SOME RESEARCH. THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DONE BY THIS GOVERMENT ARE INCREDIBLE. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY SMOKING GUN IN OUR GOVERMENT. GOOGLE SEARCH CFR AND FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND YOUR JAW WILL DROP WITH AWE.
December 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM
[Ed. Note - Thank you, Texas Dude.]
Leo, to put out a press release you might go to:
http://www.prleap.com/
There is a fee, but not long ago it was possible to put out a limited PR for free, a deal I was able to avail myself of to good effect. So I know they work.
There are several other such firms that distribute to varied outlets.
December 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Will teh Constitution be upheld, or will we have our 1st “British President”
Yes “British” according to what i have been able to conclude thru what leo has presented and further investigation of my own, the truth Obama is really hiding is the fact that he NEVER had US Citizenship at birth:
If the Supreme Court goes by law, the Barack Obama never was a US Citizen since his mother did not meet the age requirement under the Constitution 14th Amendment( Citizenship by birth (INA § 301, 8 USC § 1401) )at the time of her birth, and due to the fact that Barack’s parents were married, this only gave British Citizenship to Barack Obama:
If one parent is a US citizen, and the other is not, and the parents are married, then the current law says the child is a US citizen if the American parent was physically present in the US for one or more periods of time totalling at least five years, at some time or times in his or her life prior to (but not necessarily immediately prior to) the child’s birth. Additionally, at least two years out the required five years of physical presence must have taken place after the parent’s 14th birthday; thus, for example, a parent who was born and grew up in the US, but who left before reaching age 16 and never returned, doesn’t meet the requirement.
Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) — including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent’s 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress’s intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619).
S.2479
Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make technical correction in immigration-related laws.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (introduced 6/7/1988)
Latest Major Action: 10/24/1988 Became Public Law No: 100-525.
Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 at the time of Barack birth according to his accounts & Wikipedia, therefore Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet the age requirements, unless his parents never reaally got married in Feb 2, 1961 (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham ) as he & his family have claimed.
December 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Another case headed for the SCOTUS.
Lightfoot v George has cleared CA courts and is available for submission to Justice Kennedy on Monday.
http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/
December 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM
America
Born July 4, 1776
Died November 4, 2008
Cause of death – Suicide
R.I.P.
December 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
@Linda Melin: Are you sure about this?
The INA in this case (imho) refers to children born ABROAD to one US- and one non-US-citizen:
“anyone born outside the US, if at least one parent is a US citizen and certain residency or physical presence requirements were fulfilled by the citizen parent or parents prior to the child’s birth”
So your argument concerning Obama’s mother would only be valid if Barack Obama was not born on US soil. But to all our knowledge he was born in Hawaii.
(In any case, it wouldn’t matter, because he was under dual jurisdiction at birth, so he doesn’t qualify for natural born citizen, no matter what.)
December 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Leo….”Stay the course”.
December 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Protecting America’s National Security From Obama
Since it’s very obvious now that Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born” U.S. citizen and therefore unqualified to be President of the United States, has anyone considered filing a lawsuit to protect America’s national security secrets, nuclear launch codes and the military chain of command in the event Obama is somehow sworn in as President?
The lawsuit could state that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” based on all the evidence from the multitudes of lawsuits being filed against him regarding his citizenship status and thereby makes him unqualified to hold the office of President.
The lawsuit would prevent him from having access to national security secrets kept by the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon and other intelligence agencies, access to the launch codes of America’s nuclear arsenal and access to the military chain of command in order to prevent Obama from giving illegal orders that would jeopardize U.S. national security.
This kind of lawsuit needs to be filed to protect America and hopefully somebody with the money and access to the court system can do it.
December 6, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Leo, I read that you heard directly from a staffer in the Office of the S of S of NJ that, they all ‘assumed the DNC had vetted BO as to eligibility to be on the general election ballot for POTUS.’ This is an admission that vetting is a function of that office and that, the S of S sub-contracted out this vetting to the DNC. In other words, by admission, vetting the candidate is a ministerial duty. (I would further argue that this intertwining of governmental function viz a viz the election makes the DNC state actors.)
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
December 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM
NJ Citizen, if Leo’s suit is not granted cert, this does not mean you cannot file a similar suit, differentiated from Leo’s by the fact concerning his conversation with the staffer from the NJ Office of S of S, listed in my comment, above.
December 6, 2008 at 8:22 PM
This is my take on this matter
1. It is not a political issue, it is not partisan, and Mr. Obama is not the only candidate whose eligibility is in question, and it is not being alleged that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii.
2. When mentioned by the MSM they distort the issues and make it all about Mr. Obama. and do not mention Sen. McCain and Mr. Calero However, I am seeing a disturbing trend, on Plains Radio. The discussions are leaning, heavily, in the same direction. Perhaps, it would be helpful if the other candidates were also discussed. A review of many, many, blogs that discuss this matter is indicative that a large number of individuals believe that a child born to US citizen(s) in a military instillation is a citizen by virtue of birth. Others believe that the senate resolution bestowed upon Sen McCain the status of natural born citizen. Others believe that Mr. Obama will present his birth certificate at a news conference and that will be that.
3. The has been little if any discussion about the third candidate, who was born in Nicaragua, and appears to be a naturalized citizen. Of all the names on the NJ ballot this is the one that, I believe, glaring shows that the SOS of NJ did not perform her duties, with regard to establishing the eligibility of the candidates.
I believe that by discussing all three candidates, not just Mr. Obama;and Put the birth certificate issue aside, will help to bring focus to this matter as a constitutional issue, i.e natural born, and not a partisan issue.
This isn’t over when and if SCOTUS decides to grant a stay and hear this matter. It has just begun. Let us NOT fall into the trap that it appears the MSM is laying for us. They would like this to be a birth certificate and partisan issue, as is indicative by their reporting.
If I did not identify the issue(s) correctly please let me know.
December 6, 2008 at 11:17 PM
National Press (club)? Oh the organ that reprints a certain ppolitical party’s press releases. The “press” and the newsmedia have totally ignored this story. We no longer have a free press. The sooner the NY Times croaks, the sooner millions of trees will not be sacrificed to print propaganda. Leo continutes to do an amazing job along with Cort, Orly and others trying to defend the Constitution.
December 7, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Linda Melin,
I “borrowed” you last entry here and put it on a site that was having a discussion about Stanley Ann’s age and its relevancy to the Natural Born Citizen clause. I hope you don’t mind, but it was so well written/put and hopefully those people over there will understand it better from your words than the ones I put up earlier today.
I am just trying to help people understand, along with everyone of you here, just how important this whole thing is to our Country, especially about the “Natural Born Citizen” clause and how it differs from “native born” or naturalized. The more we can educate others, the better chance we have to make our point received with perception and intelligence rather than anger.
December 7, 2008 at 2:36 AM
[E. Note - thanks zapem. You guys rock.]
Here’s a couple Press Release sample sites that do it all for you:
1. http://www.pr.com/
2. http://www.massmediadistribution.com/
You could also put it out just like the police department would and how other large public dissemination papers are written, only do it right on your blog.
Add a category right to your blog entitled “Press Release” and add your statements there to be distributed with some type of contact such as a separate email set up for that purpose.
Hope that helps.
December 7, 2008 at 2:48 AM
If this is a duplicate Leo, please just delete it. It doesn’t seem to like multiple links in a post for some reason, so I’m just deleting those. I have the links anyway.
=============================
Thanks to CreativeOgre, I went to that link, but crossed over to the law section and searched “natural born citizen” that produced 5 interesting results that I can’t post because it kicks it. Anyway…
1. James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government [1989] –
This talks about exactly what Leo has already said, that the reason the Framers installed a natural born citizen clause for eligibility to the POTUS was emphatically to ensure there would be no dual loyalties. It goes on to pardon Romney for have no dual loyalties, as he was just a child born of American parents who happened to give birth in Mexico. But BEYOND that, IF we were to argue the dual-loyalty factor here…
I believe Obama is additionally ineligible because he has demonstrated dual loyalty. In his 2006 visit to Kenya, Liveleak reported that Obama “voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga.” – http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542 (corroborated by CBS)
In an article posted on his own Senate website, http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060828-an_honest_gover/ – he expressed an overwhelming loyalty – to Kenya:
“As a Senator from the United States, I believe that my country, and other nations, have an obligation and self-interest in being full partners with Kenya and with Africa.”
There are numerous others as well, including a televised speech at the University of Nairobi.
I have seen the argument made that Obama was born in America and therefore should be treated with the same natural born citizen status, but IF the truer test/argument is an exemplified demonstration of dual loyalties, then these are but a few examples in a sea of many. His speeches are literally dripping with favoritism towards his father’s origin of birth. However, he has vowed to enact upon them as well.
December 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM
[Ed. If the Court denies both my case and Cort's I'll be going back to poker full time, probably be in a tournament within hours of a denial.]
Leo,
If the worst happens on Monday any the Supreme Court denies the emergency stat application entirely, will pursue another case? Can you submit a formal writ of certiorari?
It will take a long time to reach SCOTUS but none of the other active cases involve the NBC subject including the new Lightfoot case.
December 7, 2008 at 7:22 PM
[Ed. - The grandfather clause was pointed out to show that the Framers made a distinction between "Citizens" and "Natural born citizens", and it's not the only relevant point on this issue. The requirements for Senate and Representative are also reduced to "Citizen". But the Op Ed piece fails to mention that. Do you honestly believe that if this goes before SCOTUS they too will ignore the three (not one) separate distinctions? ]
OK folks, Team Obama and its allied MSM have finally responded to Leo Donofrio’s Supreme Court position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” — proceeding from phase 1 (ignore) to phase 2 (ridicule) now to phase 3 (respond with legal points) … on the way to phase 4 (acceptance).
Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews — http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Barack-Obama-Natural-Bo-by-Hargrove-081207-817.html — in a nutshell is as follows:
The Framers elected not to define “natural born citizen,” except by exempting themselves, which self exemption “could be due the fact that they were not born in the United States without regard to whether or not they had been subject to British jurisdiction,” and the Framers’ lack of concern about dual citizenship or loyalties is shown by their only requiring Presidents to have been residents in the United States for 14 years — meaning an eligible candidate born in the United States still could have resided under the jurisdiction of another country for 21 years or more;
[Ed. The framers couldn't have set the requirement back further than14 years. The Constitution wouldn't be ratified until 1788. Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution and on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations. George Washington wasn't sworn in until April 30, 1789... As it is, for purposes of the residency requirement to have been met at all, you have to take the start of the United States back to 1775...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Fourteen years... right back to the start of the Revolution. That makes sense for two reasons
a. It excludes anybody who wasn't in the US at the time the revolution first started. Since the first few Presidents couldn't be natural born citizens, by making it 14 years they made it as long as possible so as to include those most likely to be loyal to the new nation.
This from "The Law Of The American Constitution", by Charles Burdik - 1922:
The committee of 11 radically modified the original proposal of the Committee of five by requiring that a person to be eligible to the office of President shall be a 'native-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution'. If these provisions had stood alone, it would still have been possible for a person who had become a citizen of the States just prior to the adoption of the Constitution to have been elected at anytime thereafter as President."
and even if the Framers WERE concerned about split loyalties, those were intended to be addressed on a “case by case basis” — and it would not be reasonable to conclude that Obama would have British loyalty since the British Citizenship conferred on him at birth was only “due to his biological relationship to an estranged and unfamiliar father.”
Team Obama concludes that the Framer’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as “Citizen” meaning all that is required is birth in the United States, even if neither parent is an American Citizen.
I’d say, if that’s all they got, Leo’s case is a slam dunk!
[Ed. - I don't know why you think this is an Obama team production. It's just a story by Op Ed. I would expect something a bit stronger than this from team Obama.]
December 7, 2008 at 10:44 PM
[ed. If SCOTUS denies my case and Cort's, I'll be playing poker later that night and my life will go back to being fun again. SCOTUS is the last stop for me. This was about the Constitution and they are the final destination. ]
Leo,
If the SCOTUS denies the stay, would it still be possible for them to hear the case?
I am no an Attorney so please correct me if I am wrong with any of the following.
The way I understand the electoral process is that on Dec. 15th the electoral college will cast their votes. They can cast their vote for another candidate if they wish. Congress will then certify the votes on Jan. 6th. At that time Congress can disqualify any votes for a candidate that is not qualified to hold the Office of President. If Congress qualifies Obama for Office then he will be sworn in on Jan. 20th. After he takes office and signs any bill or treaty that is violation of the Constitution or otherwise causes harm to any citizen of the US then those citizens that have been harmed will have just cause to challenge his status in court.
Would it be in our best interest to send any proof (case law, theories, Birth records from kenya as some have said exists) that Obama is not qualified to every member of Congress?
Ask every member of Congress to verify an original BC from Hawaii to prove he was actually born in Hawaii. If he does not provide it for Congress then they are likely to dis-qualify him.
You have done a great job in your attempt to protect this Country. You are indeed a true Patriot.
Don’t give up, it is not over yet.
December 7, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I’m hoping and praying along with many, many others that you don’;t go back to playing poker for quite some time!, but if things turn out differently than we like with your “Case” then the best to you in your games of Poker!
I know that this has been presented as a thought by others as well – Have you ever thought of Teaching? – You’d be great and would be doing a great service to our Country!! – that is if we continue to have one!! Hopefully we will and that you will have helped it to be so!! You are a real inspiration to many of us!!
No matter the outcome you have been a real warrior for the “best of causes” and you will surely be rewarded some day for this!!
Sincerely Yours,
Ethel
December 8, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Leo,
You’ll probably need some sort of press agent. Somebody who can write the releases and distribute them, along with fielding requests, clarifications, etc from field reporters and show producers.
December 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM
[Ed. It's sort of hit me today - either they deny and I put my sunglasses on and hit the poker road or the accept and the case wont need any PR. I guess Im just gonna sit tight until tomorrow and get psyched for poker or study for oral argument. But thanks for the offer.
]
Follow on…
I’m in between jobs and have the time right now. I can get a full website up in about 8 hours. I’m not a press agent, but I could help out quickly. Probably blast within a few hours. I’m sure you have good people around you already. Just offering to help you out, Bro.
December 8, 2008 at 1:04 AM
You got my email addy. You need me, just holler, Bro. Hang in there. It’s going to be alright. And get some sleep. I’ll be watching real closely. Goodnight, bro.
December 8, 2008 at 1:12 AM
I think at the very minimum, the Supremes are going remand your case back to Trenton. I’ve read so much stuff in the last few weeks, and I’m certain that BHO knew that the Natural Born Requirement is not enforced at the state level. It would be political suicide for Wells to properly vet this guy, or even McCain.
Get some rest and be prepared. I don’t see poker for a little while.
December 8, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Leo,
You said you were a musician. What do you play? I’m a guitarist.
December 8, 2008 at 1:22 AM
What ever happens, Leo, you have helped a whole lot of people get more interested in our Constitution… and that is a good thing.
Thanks for all your had work.
God Bless.
December 8, 2008 at 1:31 AM
” “Even if it were proved [Obama] was born in Hawaii,” he was not a “natural born citizen,” ”
You are asserting that a large group of people considered American Citizens are not so. That is asinine, have you never heard of Birthright Citizenship?
[Ed. Sir, please don't use insults. Just make your point. In this case your point is not correct. Show me where in the 14th Amendment, or any law for that matter, where the status conferred is listed as "natural born citizen". The 14th Amendment confers "citizen" status. Obama is a citizen of the US, but not a natural born citizen. Please consult your Constitution and find the three places where the terms are distinguished. And for the record, this same issues has been raised about 300 times on this blog.]
The 14th amendment to the constitution:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
There isn’t much there for the Supreme court to interpret, and I think you’ll be hard pressed to prove the conspiracy that the President-elect was actually born in Kenya.
This is ridiculous…
December 8, 2008 at 2:27 AM
This is to Truth Detector
SRS 511 was signed by Hilary Clinton, Sen Lehay and Obama who co-authored the resolution. It states in part ” we recognize that John Sidney McCain II is a natural born citizen. This makes it clear that all of these parties knew of the natural born citizen eligibility requirement. If McCains dual nationality placed him out of the realm of natural born citizen then so did Obamas’ dual citizenship. They placed personal ambition above the good of the country. They all attempted to circumvent the requirements placed in the Constitution,never mind their oath to uphold the Constitution. NONE of them belong in the office that they hold. Straight talk, country first MY ASS
December 8, 2008 at 4:47 AM
THINKING LIKE THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE, they would have all agreed that U.S. citizens should be allowed to live for some time outside the country and still be eligible to become the POTUS. There were at that time places of higher learning in other countries which would have been regarded as acceptable education for potential POTUS candidates. Also, they would have anticipated the need for recruitment and placement of ambassadors in other countries, whom they would not have wanted to disqualify. But if foreign leaves of absence would be allowed, then they would have been extra cautious about the effect on a persons leave of absence from the U.S. The framers would have been especially afraid of a scenario where one or both of the parents of the candidate had never become a U.S. Citizen and perhaps had allegiance to interests which would have been harmful to the U.S. We all can agree that parents can have great influence on their children at whatever age, or at least may try.
The framers would have said to themselves, lets make sure that these parents were certainly citizens of the U.S. and were so at the time of the eligible candidates birth. Parent(s) of the candidate who had obtained U.S. citizenship before the birth but had subsequently relinquished citizenship before the time of the birth would be more subject to suspicion with respect to allegiance to U.S. interests. Parent(s) who were not U.S. citizens at the birth but obtained U.S. citizenship after the birth would have would potentially have naturalized for motives contrary to the good of the U.S.
The framers must have known that they could not preclude the possibility of a POTUS coming from a parent having allegiance to interests not the best for the U.S. But the framers would have done their best to minimize the likelihood of producing a scenario harmful to a nation they obviously cared so much about.
So, the framers had good reason behind attaching another special requirement for a persons eligibility to become the POTUS. They printed a peculiar phrase which was different than “native-born citizen”. What would they have called this more assuredly allegiant class of citizen eligible to hold the nation’s highest office; “Natural born citizen”?
Semper Fidelis!
December 8, 2008 at 7:24 AM
[Ed. There's no law or SCOTUS case that says you're a natural born citizen if born on US soil. The relevant laws only go as far as sayong you're a "citizen" in born on US soil.]
How exactly is Obama not a natural-born citizen? He was born on U.S. soil.
December 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM
Leo you have stated many times you believe obama was born in hawaii.On what do you base that statement on?What makes you so certain that you continue to make that statement.Is it just your opinion or is it a fact that you can prove or point to?You appear to be a man who only relies on facts and not opinions.
December 8, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Follow the money!
Who’s paying the law firm$ to defend BO?
If BO, then source of $$$ is ? personal or campaign funds?
Character raises Suspicion = campaign $$$ … legality of use of such funds ? another suit? cut-off the fuel!
Thank you for standing up for OUR precious and blessed Constitution!
Richard Lawrence in Florida
December 8, 2008 at 7:45 AM
[Ed. My life will not be defined by this case. I had a career before this case, and it will continues within hours of any decision against me. I'm all in.
]
Today might be the day we find something out. Leo, either way, if the Supreme Court denies or approves your argument, then you will be at the very least a footnote in history. If they accept your argument, your name will be taught in History and Political Science classes all over the country for decades to come. If they deny your argument, and this sets precedence for future eligibility questions, then you’ll be one of those listed that fought the fools hard to save our country from what might become our fall in the future.
Stop by my blog once in awhile to witness a breakthrough decoding process I’ve uncovered. Using it the right way will yield predictions of future political events. Many examples and instructions will be given. Since you’re a Coast to Coast AM lover (well maybe not that much anymore?), I assume this topic will be of interest to you.
December 8, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Good Luck today Leo… We all are praying for you and our Country. It is our prayer that SCOTUS has had time to deliberate and research and will find that this is indeed a Important Constitutional issue that will set precidence for future generations…. God Save Our Republic!
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 AM
May be of interest.
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/secretary-of-state-requests-for-documents-sample-letter-responses-say-obamas-qualifications-never-verified
Also, it is very important to ensure the SCOTUS is aware of Obama’s trip to Kenya in 2006 where he campaigned for his cousin in a national election there. (As a U.S. Senator at tax payer expense.) I could not think of a better example of dual allegiances.
This question keeps coming to my mind. Would Chief Justice Roberts do the swearing in if he had any doubt about Obama’s natural born citizen status? Also, would he want to be in the history books as the one who swore in a usurper? You would think not.
December 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I understand and appreciate your stance away from the media Leo – they have failed completely to educate us on this very crucial and basic Constitutional issue, as well as ignoring ongoing efforts to weaken our country to foreign influence through contempt for the Constitution.
It should never have come to this – it is a wake up call for all of us, of the most serious kind.
I hope everyone reading this blog takes the time to ponder that in all of this nation, only one citizen, a guy from New Jersey, understood the issue and dangers clearly enough, and with enough conviction, to grasp our fate and take it forward wiht haste forward to the Supreme Court.
December 8, 2008 at 8:52 AM
I understand and appreciate your stance away from the media Leo – they have failed completely to educate us on this very crucial and basic Constitutional issue, as well as ignoring ongoing efforts to weaken our country to foreign influence through contempt for the Constitution.
It should never have come to this – it is a wake up call for all of us, of the most serious kind.
I hope everyone reading this blog takes the time to ponder that in all of this nation, only one citizen, a guy from New Jersey, understood the issue and dangers clearly enough, and with enough conviction, to grasp our fate and take it forward with haste, to the Supreme Court.
December 8, 2008 at 8:52 AM
A *probable* perjurer too
Sworn affidavit by BO from AZ SOS … posted here >
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703
.
.
.
Richard Lawrence in Florida
December 8, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Leo,
Have you seen the LA Times article regarding your lawsuit? They do mention that it deals with both McCain and Obama and they mention that it deals with the natural born citizen issue, but they go on to say that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen.
They say that any emergency stay that is referred to more than one judge is sent to conference. I do not think this is the case. I thought that it may be more likely that a stay may be taken up by the second judge that it is referred, but not necessarily that it will go to full conference. I hope that your case is heard. What you have done is tremendously courageous and we all appreciate your persistance very much!!
December 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Why do you believe Obama was born in Hawaii? There is no conclusive proof yet you state you believe this. Is it just to look less “conspiracy theory” oriented? We all know that B.C. he posted is not proof given the laws of Hawaii allowing foreign born births to be registered in Hawaii. Witnesses in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. What do you know that they don’t??
December 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Can anyone suggest a link or other such source for a reliable update on whether the Supreme Court has granted or denied the Application for Emergency Stay currently pending in Donofrio v. Wells?
December 8, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Leo, even if you don’t practice law in the future, I sincerely hope you might consider a faculty position. Your research is superb, and you have an uncanny way of explaining things, and remaining on point. You would make an excellent law professor.
December 8, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Mr. Donofrio this may be of interest. This was part of a really good comment posted on TD (texasdarlin) on 12/7/08 about what is being said on the pro-Obama blogs: “Obama is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.” That “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. and the state wherein they reside.”……There is a movement describing the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning, under the subjectivity, and protection of the Laws of the U.S…..The pro-Obama blogs interpratation is: If Obama had to abide by the laws of the U.S., then he is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore, a citizen, even better a Natural Born Citizen. Also, the inability of him to “Choose” his allegience as an infant, and again as a young boy when his mother remarried, were not his choice, therefore there is no need to “Renounce the Dual Citizenships.”……..Just thought I’d pass along this info along to you……God Bless You Mr.Donofrio!
December 8, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Answered my own question. Application denied.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
December 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
ITS OFFICIAL THE SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED LOE’S CASE!!!!!!!! Msnbc reporting
December 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
08A407
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
Sorry Leo. Man I hate this. Our Constitution becomes more meaningless.
December 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Leo,
Sorry about have case denied. You gave it your best. Now go play poker. Be good Bro!
December 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I understand that leo wants to stay focused on his issue but it seem a little funny that he has three teams of lawyers fighting to keep him from showing his vault copy of a birth certificate in stead fo that copy of certification of live birth he is spending alot of money to hide something instead of just making it public.
He is running for public office, he should have to make all papers open to public so people can see what and whom they are voting for.
December 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama_2
Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve
Play Video Video: Tension still high in Hebron BBC WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.
December 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Accorting to the SCOTUS order list, Leo’s Stay request was denied. Does that mean your you no longer have a request for CERT?
December 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I understand that leo wants to stay focused on his issue but it seem a little funny that he has three teams of lawyers fighting to keep him from showing his vault copy of a birth certificate in stead fo that copy of certification of live birth he is spending alot of money to hide something instead of just making it public.
He is running for public office, he should have to make all papers open to public so people can see what and whom they are voting for.
December 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Sorry Leo, all your hard work on this case and the SCOTUS simply says denied as of 10:14am. I hope you get some sort of reasonable explaination. Most likely its just [Ed. snip].
December 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM
The order says it was denied:(
Great Efforts, Leo
December 8, 2008 at 10:27 AM
TRUE AP STORY?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUQU9Oy9bW8w5a5eevJkGvFNtmAD94UJH581
Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve
19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
December 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I am so sorry!
08A407
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
There are 4 more into the U.S. Supreme Court.
We’ll all be waiting to hear — JUST WHAT THEIR REASONING IS.
AH, USURPER! WE SHALL HAIL! WHAT A BAD DAY FOR AMERICA!!!
Thank you, Leo, for all your diligent efforts! You are brilliant!
December 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUQU9Oy9bW8w5a5eevJkGvFNtmAD94UJH581
This is not right. Leo Donofrio deserved to be heard.
December 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I just saw the SCOTUS orders. Thanks for fighting the good fight Leo. I think our founding father’s are rolling over in their graves today.
December 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.
Sad day for America and the Constitution.
December 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I am so sorry for you and this country that you were not successful.
December 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Is the case still open if the application for stay was denied?
December 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Saw this posted this morning:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/08/1702234.aspx
December 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Docket Change date changed, but no new info posted.
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=donofrio
December 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
News is popping up on google search:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/08/us-supreme-court-denies-requests-for-injunctive-relief-in-two-obama-eligibility-cases/
December 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I just read the SCOTUS did not take your case. I am disappointed and I know you must be also. This is so wrong. We have a usurper in the White House. Do you have any other options? Thank you for all of your hard work. You are a blessing.
December 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I just copied this from http://www.therightsideoflife.com website:
December 8th, 2008
The Supreme Court of the US has denied an application of stay in the case of Donofrio v. Wells.
From today’s Orders:
08A407
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
It is likely that the full Court has now agreed with Associate Justice Souter’s original denial of Leo’s emergency stay application.
If this therefore means the end of the road for this case at SCOTUS, it basically means the matter should be handled back at the State level (per the wikipedia entry for certiorari; see my thoughts here).
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits is located here.
This posting updated throughout the day.
-Phil
Looks as if it got denied…
December 8, 2008 at 10:50 AM
AP is reporting U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear case? Is this true?
December 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
bad news:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obamacase1208,0,4951107.story
December 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Yep. Thanks Leo for all your hard work.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_OBAMA?SITE=MABED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
December 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Bad news just in…
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1687
December 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Leo I am sorry that the court did not see it your way. Is there anything we can do now? Like go after him in Civil Court?
December 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Leo: Seems the reports are coming every few minutes from Mainstream Press. Please let us know how you’re doing. I see you as a fellow dedicated to preserving a sound constitution. After all, in government, what else is there without a sound constitution? Our freedom of speech will prevail & though this seems BIG, we will go on: being the loyal opposition to progressives who thumb their collective noses at the single most important document in the world.
God Bless America…
December 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUQU9Oy9bW8w5a5eevJkGvFNtmAD94UJH581
December 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
BTW —— [snipped by Ed. please dont insult the Court. You dont know their reasoning.]
Anyone interested in coordinating a “Million Citizen March” to the SC PRIOR to Jan 6th, 2009 when the Electorate Votes are actually effectual?
Also, do we have a Web Site Designer here interesting in Developing the Domain —– http://www.officeoftheusurper.com
Hope this comment meets the criteria of posting on your site Leo.
Bless You and your efforts on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and those of us that do not wish for the Millions of Deaths, Injury’s, that have been sacrificed for OUR CONSTITUTION to go down in history as “SACRIFICE OF NO CONSEQUENCE!
December 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Leo,
Just reviewed todays SCOTUS orders and your application for stay has been denied.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
December 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Is it possible that the SCOTUS refusual to hear the case had nothing to do with the merits, but rather the question as to whether SCOTUS was the appropriate venue for this argument?
I think the Electoral College bears the responsibility to elect a President who meets the requirements.
Could it be that SCOTUS has decided not to hear the case, due to the timing? That there is no reason to rule for a stay, as the process should be allowed to go forward, ejecting any candidates for office who do not meet the requirements.
Perhaps the majority of SCOTUS believes that at this juncture they do not carry jurisdiction over the proceedings, as nothing has been made official yet.
If the Electoral college fails in their duties, then it may be necessary for the supreme court to step in. But until that happens, they have no reason to issue any stays in the election process.
Just my inquiry.
December 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Well, that’s the end of that.
This has been a long and ugly election cycle. Obama will have many mega problems to deal with when he assumes office in January, and I believe he will have much trouble keeping his head above water. I don’t envy him.
It’s time to rebuild the nation in many ways. It should be an interesting 4 years.
December 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Looks like Donofrio cedrt is denied
SCOTUS… [ed. please dont insult the court] Obviously a purely political rulling.
On the bright side there are about four more to go..?
I’m still in for the long haul… and I know you said you were done if the case is denied cert….but please don’t lose heart ….it’s not over…there has to be way. What about his statments (signed) from AZ as being natural born vs admission of dual nationalities? We have copies of those.
December 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
According to an AP story on Yahoo News the Supreme Court has refused to hear Donofrio’s case:
Review Denied
December 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
December 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Well, I don’t know where anyone draws the line with the COLB lawsuits/court cases. Ultimately, you must decide when you have seen enough to finally say “Okay, he meets the conditions to be president”.
This case as well as many others has a track record of failure and now, even the supreme court has weighed in and the case has gotten the “thumbs down”.
You might say “well, this is just one case out of many”. But, like most things it’s not the quantity, it’s the quality.
This case has gone as far as it can go and has been shut down. How far will you go?
December 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Mr D’Onofrio,
dual citizenship is common in the US. Italian Americans, as you are I believe, are entitled to Italian citizenship if they request it. Jews are entitled to Israeli citizenship if they ask for it. The fact is that different nations have different laws for granting (or reclaiming) citizenship and certainly the US cannot control or influence these. Nor should the criteria for defining “natural birth” be affected by the fact that a parent’s country’s laws might conflict with US citizenship legislature. So we should stand by our laws which grants citizenship upon birth (ius soli – right of soil).
December 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I apologize. My link did not work. Here it is without tags.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
December 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Leo, Can you explain to us if your case is fully denied, or if just the “application for stay” was denied. Just don’t understand if your case is fully denied or not. God Bless you for all you have done and are doing to see that our Constitution is upheld. We love you! Jean & James
December 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The news reported that the Supreme Court denied your case. The SCOTUS orders linked here says the application for Stay is denied. By denying the application for Stay mean the case is dead? If so, does this mean that the Supreme Court is simply avoiding involvement in this issue?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
They say evil prevails when good men do nothing. So, which is it???…that the Justices are the good men that did nothing or did evil prevail even though Leo, a good man, did something?
December 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Case was turned down about an hour ago. I guess that’s it. Hope is gone.
December 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Per USA Today, SCOTUS has denied Donofrio case Cert.
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
So what was this case missing – that got it denied? Was it that there was not as yet a court precedent of definition of Natural Born Citizen? Are they relying on the already established layers of authority to work through – like the electors themselves and/or Congress’ final certification?
Will you ask Clarence Thomas, Leo, for all the details?
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This case was denied because the procedures under the 20th Amendment have yet to transpire. After that happens, if no sucessful challenge to Obama is brought, then SCOTUS might act. Bfore that, they would feel they are inserting themselves, especially after Bush v. Gore. Leo, all the others who follow you will benefit from the great work, scholarship,and historical sleuthing you have carried out. Bless you.
December 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
SCOTUS said no dice today.
Really sad day in American history when the very people, the last line of defense, surrender our Constitution out of political expediency. Shame on all the SCOTUS’s.
December 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Mr. Donofrio, did you also file for writ of certiorari as well as application for stay? According to today’s orders, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf, the application was denied, but your case is not listed in certiorari denied list. Could that mean that there is still a possible hearing, just no stay of the electors?
December 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Sadly, the Supreme Court just denied Leo’s without comment
December 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment does prescribe what to do regarding presidential succession if something should happen prior to the time the president takes office.
One of the conditions is “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”.
What does it mean to say a President elect has failed to qualify? The fact that Section 3 talks about the President elect would suggest that there is candidate who has received the required number of electoral votes.
“Failure to qualify” would have to mean that the President elect fails to meet the requirements stated in Article II, Section 1, i.e., age, residency, and natural born citizenship.
At least, this is how I undestand the Constituion. If someone more knowledgeble than I can confirm a different interpretation I would appreciate it.
A Senator and a Representative from a given state can challenge the election. I doubt that this will happen.
In any event, this is way too late in the process. The system is broken. We need legislation to require any and all presidential candidates to prove their constitutional worthiness for office as a prerequisite for getting on any ballot.
December 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
We should all hold a vigil for our country today. RIP America. The framers failed in their noble experiment.
We are no longer a country ruled by law, but rather, a country ruled by men, or worse, by some form of elusive despotism. Alexis de Tocqueville understood well the risk to a government by the people, for the people; the freedom we all seemingly cherish is nothing but an illusion. It may have been long since undone, but there can be no doubt after today; Ameria was officially conquered on 12/8/2008.
December 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
== > John Boy Says:
December 6, 2008 at 6:46 am
________
Found it by searching the passage:
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71449
What did you try? It was easy.
December 8, 2008 at 7:25 PM
[Ed. cool.]
Mr. Donofrio, I apologize for your having to snip out my last word of my comment of 10:24 this am. It was merely frustration and a love of my constitution and country,not even animise toward Mr. Obama. You have enough work to do without editing remarks like mine. God Bless
December 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM
You have probably read about the Press Conference. I don’t think it helped get the needed questions asked.
Thought that you might like to know:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/09/birth_certificate/
Taitz — the lead attorney in the case the Supreme Court declined to hear Monday morning
[Ed. Considering it's a "Pro Se" case where I represented myself and only myself... they really went out of their way to get their facts straight.]
December 12, 2008 at 6:11 PM
[...] birth certificate websites: Philip Berg obamacrimes Leo Donofrio Natural Born Citizen Robert Schultz We The People America Must Know lawsuit list The Obama File comprehensive site [...]
December 29, 2008 at 12:54 AM
[...] birth certificate websites: Philip Berg obamacrimes Leo Donofrio Natural Born Citizen Robert Schultz We The People America Must Know lawsuit list The Obama File comprehensive site [...]
December 29, 2008 at 10:19 PM
[...] “Ron Polarik’s” website proof of forgery Philip Berg obamacrimes Leo Donofrio Natural Born Citizen Robert Schultz We The People America Must Know lawsuit list The Obama File comprehensive site [...]