Archive for December, 2008


Posted in Uncategorized on December 11, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE – 6:20 PM Sat. Dec. 13, 2008]: Just became aware of Plains Radio’s gross statements regarding Barack Obama’s health.  Leo Donofrio will not be on Plains Radio again.

[UPDATE – 11:10 AM Sat. Dec 13, 2008]: Yesterday, a SCOTUS clerk told Cort his decision wouldn’t be released untill Monday.  This was at approximately 11:00 AM while the Justices were still behind closed doors.

Tonight I will publish a point by point breakdown explaining why the application I prepared for Cort’s brief was so much stronger than the one in my own.]


This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation – your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune).  They don’t report the news anymore. No.  Now they tell you what they want the news to be.  There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots – three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father.  Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots.  No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution – that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about?  Thou doth protest too much.  Me thinks so.  Why?  Because the law is against their man – it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.  And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default.  I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.


Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens.  In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation.  The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.  McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty.  Quite the opposite.  Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama’s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not  been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity.  And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a “natural born citizen” by the Constitution.

As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.  He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect.  But both of them should have known that if either were to become President – despite the loyalty they have for this country – the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.


The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues.  I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails.  But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger.  And the candidates knew that.

I suppose they’ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next.  But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call.


Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya.  There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that.  Obama has it posted on his own web site. It’s this very definition which I included in Cort’s Wrotnowski’s brief.  Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

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. (Emphasis added.)

There it is.  Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction.  This is no theory.  This is a fact.

I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii.  I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site.  I said that over and over, but they’re still lying about my position.  Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?  Is the truth now part of a conspiracy?

Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama’s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law.

What have we come to?

The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn the intent of 65 million voters.  It’s an argument that fails – if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.

My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution.  It’s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.

The people are subservient to the Document and if we don’t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.

Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.

But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it’s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists.  All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published.  It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries.

“Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,” they squawk.   Me so crazy.  Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn’t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue.  And that’s the only issue before the Honorable Court.

That being said, let’s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term “natural born Citizen” as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are “citizens”.


I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it’s quite the opposite.  Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

I understand the countering argument and I’ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog.  But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven’t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text.  It just conveys the status of “Citizen”.  And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”.  The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor.  I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.  Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller.  In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at “footnote 10”:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758.  This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen.  And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 10, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Yesterday, after Cort filed the supplemental brief at the Supreme Court, we dropped by the Library of Congress and took a look at the index of papers for Chester Arthur. (Please see previous report.) Compared to most of the other Presidents, there’s barely anything on Chester.  The index is a skinny little pamphlet, thirteen pages long.  The introduction to the index begins with a letter from Chester A. Arthur III:

“You may be sure that I am as interested as you are in having the Arthur papers finally come to rest in the Library of Congress.  The ones that I have in my possession have traveled a good deal — over to Europe, back to Colorado, California, and now here.  During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them — not even me.  When they finally came into my possession.  I was amazed that there were so few…

Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather’s First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.”

It’s quite a dramatic start for a Library of Congress index document.  The intrigue continues as follows:

“For many years President Arthur was represented in the Manuscript Division by a single document… Beginning in 1910 and continuing to the present, successive chiefs of the division have done what they could do to assemble surviving Arthur manuscripts.  For the first of these chiefs, Gaillard Hunt, who in that year intitiated the search for the main body of Arthur Papers, there was little but discouragement as a result of his inquiries.  However, his persistence and what he was able to learn were to encourage his successors.

He wrote first to Col. William G. Rice and learned the address of Mrs. John E. McElroy, Arthur’s sister and official hostess during his administration.  Mr. Hunt wrote to her and learned from her that Chester A. Arthur, Jr., controlled the papers.  After several attempts, Mr. Hunt learned Mr. Arthur’s address and wrote to him.  The reply — written on March 13, 1915, five years after the search began — provided the first concrete but frustrating evidence:

‘I beg you will excuse my tardiness in replying to your letter of November 4th [1914].  The question of my father’s papers is a very sore subject with me.

‘These papers were supposed to be in certain chests which were stored on their receipt from Washington, in the cellar of 123 Lexington Avenue.  After my father’s death, they were removed, I believe, by direction of the executors to a store house recommended by Mr. McElroy at Albany.  Several years ago on making my residence in Colorado, I sent for these chests of papers and found in them nothing but custom house records of no particular value or importance.  Where the papers they were supposed to contain have vanished, is a mystery.’ “

The story just keeps getting stranger.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12.   The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject.   This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark – was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898.  But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.  At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age.   Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year.  It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President  (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States.   The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.


All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court.  This is not a rally, protest or vigil.   If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski


Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

December 6, 2008  6:36 PM

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006  ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792  192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress.   He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843.  But Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations  started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.   It was bunk.  It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.   But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880.  His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP.  His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.


Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated.  It was ratified in 1867.  In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee.   He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.


The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821.  They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old.  Another blatant lie.  His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen.  This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue  stayed hidden in plain site.


I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843.   I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference.  As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.

I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book.  But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there.   Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine from the Brooklyn public library.

I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.

Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history.  I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story.  My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler.  I’ll let you read it:


Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?


I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.

Chester Arthur had something to hide.

He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland.  By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

Is this the twilight zone?

William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William.   Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.  Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.

And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830.  I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information.  It’s another lie.  I just don’t know what it means.

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.  He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge.   Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio  COPYRIGHT 2008


Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen


At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“ 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 status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:


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.



Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen


“Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately …” SNIP

I’ve snipped my original post.  No point leaving the old post up.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE 7:36 pm Terry Owens of ABC News has somewhat corrected his story, but it’s still misleading.  Here’s what it says now:

“The lawsuit was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio who is questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

It’s misleading because I believe Obama is a United States citizen.  I am not questioning his “citizenship”, I’m questioning “natural born citizenship”.  The Constitution uses the two terms, “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” exclusively as they mean different things.  If Mr. Owns will change the article once more to reflect what I’ve said above, I’ll be happy to remove the blog below and credit his correction. ]


Below is the text of a letter I just sent to ABC News:

Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.

The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you.  I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born.  You wrote,

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen – at birth – a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.  The word “born” has meaning.  It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.  Obama had dual nationality at birth.  The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”  If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.

And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008.  That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.

There are two docket entries for Nov. 19.  One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court.  The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court.  She will set you and your story straight.

The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court.  There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference.  In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action.  There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled

“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”

You may find it here:

Click to access reportersguide.pdf

It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon.  On page 3, it states:

“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.

Now go back and check the docket url for my case.

Another misleading element of your story is the headline.  The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.  Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President.  I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.  Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.  So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.

If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.

My blog URL is

Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case.  After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report.  We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission.  I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.


Leo C. Donofrio


Posted in Uncategorized on December 3, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE 4:48 pm]

Rick Montgomery just called me from the Kansas City Star and admitted he wasn’t aware that my law suit was not centered on the birth certificate issue.   He was sincere and apologized for the way my case was described in the article.  You have to give him credit for that.  Apparently he received many calls today from readers of this blog.  I should also point out that his story does mention on page 2 that I brought McCain into the law suit.  My original blog below missed that, so I apologized to him in kind.  He said the headline which made it seem like the issue was directed at just Obama was out of his control.  Fair enough and proper respect for the phone call.  We may talk again later this week.

[UPDATE 11:04 AM] Fox News got some of it wrong. The clip below didn’t have the full Baier quote which appears at the FOX NEWS site.

“Meanwhile — the blogosphere is still abuzz over Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The Supreme Court will decide Friday if it will hear a case challenging whether the president-elect is a natural-born citizen. One similar case has already been thrown out.”

No similar case has been thrown out.  My case is not similar to any other case except for Cort Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State which has been submitted by renewed application to Justice Scalia.  If Baier is referring to Berg’s case, he is twice mistaken.  Berg’s case is not similar to mine.  Berg never raised the issue that Obama is not eligible because he was a British citizen at birth.  Furthermore, only Berg’s emergency application was denied.  His full petition for certiorari is still pending although it probably will be denied on the issue of “standing”.  He went to SCOTUS via the federal courts while my case took the proper State court route.  That’s another thing which makes our cases vastly different but the main stream media can’t seem to get their heads around the chasm of difference between the two cases.  Regardless, Berg’s case hasn’t been thrown out as of yet.

Again, why can’t the main stream media simply call the SCOTUS Public Affairs Office and get their facts straight.

[UPDATE 10:30AM] FOX NEWS gets it right in very brief clip.  It’s short but accurate. Bret Baier mentions Friday’s SCOTUS activity on the case.


Does the main stream media even know how to research a story any longer?  Or are they reporting the story wrong on purpose?  The MSNBC fiasco by Pete Williams was bad enough when the report made it seem as if Berg’s law suit had been distributed for conference on December 5 along with mine.  It wasn’t.   Furthermore, people have reported back that their comments to that story which tried to correct the record were not allowed to be posted.  I guess the MSNBC policy is to make up stories now.  Just make it all up.  Is this case exposing major media mavens as propaganda ponies?  We report, you decide.

Now comes the Kansas City Star and reporter Rick Montgomery with another very misleading account of the case.  I phoned Mr. Montgomery this morning and left a relaxed message giving him the benefit of the doubt and offering to speak with him to correct the story should he be so inclined.  We will assume for now he was simply lazy and not assertive in his mistaken reporting.  There are three blatant mistakes in his piece.

MISTAKE 1: the headline is completely misleading on two fronts

“Anti-Obama bloggers challenge birthplace”

If Mr. Montogmery had done the slightest bit of research, he might have found my application now before the SCOTUS.  That application firmly argues that John McCain was not eligible to be President along with Roger Calero and Barack Obama.   Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run – and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run – with very harsh treatment.  McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.

Montgomery’s report fails to point any of this out opting for the more salacious headline.  The headline is bunk, but hopefully not intentional bunk.  We shall see.

MISTAKE 2: My lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court is not focused on challenging Obama’s place of birth.  I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, as well as in the actual application submitted to the Court, asserted my belief that Obama was probably born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.

My original lower court suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least, requested to see Obama’s BC.  But that is not a core issue in my case.  And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue – that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen – even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject.

As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen “at birth”.  His own web site told me so.  And backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948.  Montgomery cites as a “nonpartisan” source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at birth” through his Father.

My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.

Here is what Montgomery said:

“In the outer cosmos of the blogosphere, the presidential election isn’t over.

Barack Obama, now busily forming his administration, isn’t just the wrong person to lead the nation, claim Web sites such as America Must Know and Right Side News.

He is, they contend, constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The argument is over his place of birth — Hawaii…”

Wow.  It never mentions the main argument of my law suit.  Nada.  Zippo.  Zilch.  Nothing about it.


Montgomery fails to get the facts of the Distribution for Conference of Dec. 5 right.  He fails to mention that the full Court distributed it for conference AFTER considering a refferal from Justice Thomas:

“One litigant’s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.

Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obama’s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.”

All he had to do was call the Public Information Office at the SCOTUS and they would have explained to him what the entries on my Docket mean.   As was reported by Bob Vernon of Honest American News and Plains Radio Network two days ago, Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference of December 5, 2008 after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral.  There has been multiple docket activity on my case this week.  One would think reporters would actually use the resources SCOTUS makes available to them.

No mention of Cort Wrotnowski’s case by Montgomery.  That case is now before Justice Scalia.

Montgomery mentions my site in his report, so I don’t know why he didn’t see all of this explained in my blogs below.  Hopefully he will fix the record.  There’s a place to comment on his report for those so inclined.