KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG

[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.

KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS THE STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG.

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 factcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948.  Montgomery cites factcheck.org 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.

MISTAKE 3:

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.

104 Responses to “KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG”

  1. I half wonder if Obama understood months ago your subtle legal point, and held back his birth certificate as a trump card to confuse the populace if the Supremes rule against him. With a populace focussed on place of birth, a genuine certificate showing he was born in Hawai’i may sweep the truth and the facts out to sea. Frankly, I hope my supposition is wrong.
    ========================================

  2. Leo,

    How absolutely frustrating that most people are not grasping the concept of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Most assume that if one is born on US soil they are naturally born. Most also assume that having one US citizen parent and being born on US soil makes one a natural born citizen.

    Yeah, well you know what happens when people ASSume…

    All truth passes through three stages:

    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

  3. i saw the report this morning….how shameless. where has journalism gone? That reporter is irresponsible. I picked up the errors too.
    Keep up the good work Leo.

  4. Is it possible to correct what the MSM tries? to report on? This is no different than the phenomenal election coverage we recently witnessed.
    Personally, my patience with the MSM is wearing to the bone. The MSM has behaved nothing short of criminal.
    I am sure that Edward R Murrow is rolling in the grave.

  5. Lynn from Texas-Proud Red State Says:

    Leo, I’ll say a little prayer for your safety. I worry about you. Personally, I believe you’ve encountered so many barriers because YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING. I’m not an attorney, just a lowly CPA, but have spent months researching this issue. YOU SIR, ARE CORRECT. Good luck to you. You are an American hero.

  6. It is fortunate that we have not had to rely on these types of articles to accomplish the task of defending our Constitution. Should the Supreme Court find Barack Obama ineligible to serve as President of the United States, the media will finally be exposed to the American Public for what it really is. The degree to which the mainstream media has mislead and misdirected the citizens of this country is nothing less than treasonous.

    Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court scheduled our conference for December 5th. This time could have been used by the media to introduce to the citizens of this country the possibility that Obama may not be allowed to take office on January 20th, 2009. The fact that the media has so utterly failed to use this time to inform the country of this possibility means that a decision to declare Obama ineligible to serve will only occur as a huge shock to the country and the world.

    The media will, thus, be complicit in whatever consequences may ensue.

  7. Deliberate misinformation is made stronger by mixing in some truth.

    Comments on the article at the Kansas City Star have already been disabled.

  8. minnesotaReader Says:

    Leo,

    You have a constant “up-hill” battle…. just remember that there are tens of thousands of us behind you, encouraging and assisting you to climb this hill.

  9. FightforAmerica Says:

    It feels like we are living in a Third World Country. Americans better wake up, we are getting a preview of what life will be like in America if the SCOTUS does not rule in favor of our Constitution. People in the MSM like Mr. Montgomery who want to blatantly mislead the public and trample on our Constitution are free to go live in a Third World Country.

    Thanks Leo, no matter the battle we are facing, I believe the truth, good over evil will prevail.

  10. Here’s a reply I received yesterday from FOX News –

    Subject: RE: So long…
    Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:12:40 -0500
    Thread-Topic: So long…
    From: “Show -Fox Report”
    To: “Katie

    This story has no merit.

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Katie
    Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 5:42 PM
    To: Show -Fox Report
    Subject: So long…

    I’m sad that FOX is participating in the media’s hush over Obama’s
    citizenship.

    And I’m really sad that I can never again trust in your network’s
    integrity and journalistic ethics. FOX News was the last vestige of
    a free press on the TV, so I’ll miss you as I turn to internet news
    sources.

    Even when – if? – you do start to cover this news, I can no longer
    believe you are reporting the facts.

    How sad…

  11. It’s just not the MSM not covering the dispute, but neither is conservative talk radio or conservative blogs such as hotair or AceOfSpades.

    Maybe once the Supreme Court issues a decision it will be politically correct for conservatives to discuss on the air and in their blogs. I find it ironic as much as they rail about the MSM, they’re not any better.

  12. I would be interested to know what legal definition that Leo is using to determine who is a natural born citizen. Could someone please point me to the part of the Constitution or US legal code that give us the definition.

  13. Bill Payne Says:

    Leo, the curtain is finally being pulled back, as you are seeing the true purpose of the media – to form men’s attitudes. The story is currently being framed in a particular and deliberate way, to confuse the public and diminish the facts of the case. This is very deliberate. A propaganda strategy has been developed, and you are just seeing the beginnings of its deployment.

    We will need a PR specialist to handle the barrage of spin that is going to be unleashed. May I suggest that you put out a call for this type of expertise in your radio interviews, as you will not be able to handle this on your own, and this case will ultimately be decided by public opinion, even if SCOTUS rules in your favor.

    Get ready, the PR attack has commenced, and it will destroy the best of things in a blink of an eye.

  14. I really don’t understand the case against Mccain. Our military’s children no matter where they are born should be considered natural born. What about a missionary who has children while serving on a foreign field? Are they not “natural born”?

  15. Leo

    last night as I was trying to make sense of all this and. Having the adoption issue on my mind it dawned on me….

    We now have evidence of an Imdonesian adoption from the divorce records.
    Adoption records are generally sealled with a. New COLB being issued to the new parents thus Barry Soetorro
    Barry Dunham registers for school in Hawaii ignoring Inonesian citizenship
    but we also have that beautiful family portrait scene in the airport of Sr
    In the US ….to give affidavits or to ADOPT his ‘son’ ???? COLB. would then read “father African”. Was Ann Indonsian at the time ?? Again sealled records
    Passports Indonesian? Kenyan?
    Remember the strongest argument is his alligiance to Odinga and Kenya which came out recently.
    Dual allegance is what the forefathers were protecting us from.

  16. I’m just a techhie. Your times posted seem to be tilted. It’s now 3 Dec’08 11:07 EST (16:07 Z or UT). How can posts alt 3:23 this afternoon. Back to the future?.
    Anyway. BO can thence claim British birthright. The question is: Can he also claim US birthright as well? The 1795 Naturalization Act considered that “children born of US citizen parents abroad are Citizens”, I think. The key is the plural. Where is it listed all the variants of this posit? One parent Citizen enough? What about residence elsewhere? What about a foreign father when born on US soil? I have not seen a good analysis of these situations. Where is it in the congessional proceedings? And WHERE is the document that authenticates his birth here. Surely responsible hospitals were extant in Honolulu in the 1960’s. Or was it a midwife?
    AJC

  17. Leo – please read through this and see if you agree … summary is that this person states we DO have a process in place to deal with the qualification of the President-elect, albeit after we vote and the electors vote. They state that at that point, someone in Congress must raise an objection to the qualification of the President Elect. See here: http://www.bloggernews.net/118851

  18. I’m just a techhie. Your times posted seem to be tilted. It’s now 3 Dec’08 11:07 EST (16:07 Z or UT). How can posts alt 3:23 this afternoon. Back to the future?.
    Anyway. BO can thence claim British birthright. The question is: Can he also claim US birthright as well? The 1795 Naturalization Act considered that “children born of US citizen parents abroad are Citizens”, I think. The key is the plural. Where is it listed all the variants of this posit? One parent Citizen enough? What about the presidential requirement to be a natural born citizen? What about a foreign father of a child that is born on US soil? I have not seen a good analysis of these situations. Where is it in the congressional proceedings? And WHERE is the document that authenticates his birth here. Surely responsible hospitals were extant in Honolulu in the 1960’s. Or was it a midwife? And can That birth be dubbed “Natural Born”?
    AJC

  19. OK. I see that your time posts are GMT (or Z, or UT), not local US times.
    It’s now 1126 am (4:26 pm GMT (16:26Z)).
    AJC

  20. moderationist Says:

    You are a great American hero. Hang in there. The intellectually dishonest and biased liberal denial is criminal.

  21. There are a growing number of Americans who have dealt with the dead tree media in their own way: homeowners have canceled their subscriptions, business owners (tired of being vilified by editorial boards) have stopped advertising. Basically, Americans have “fired” the main stream media.

    Over-the-air news hours are faring not much better. And, the story for 2009 will be the steady decline in cable news. Americans are “firing” the electronci media.

    Leo Donofrio has just demonstrated why people want an “unfiltered source.” Leo offers one for himself, and then he also directs his readers to his own “unfiltered sources,” knowing that this is the only way to get the facts.

    Of course, there are bozos on-line, just like there are bozos everywhere, but they are easily identified, and they are soon discarded.

    I, for one, feel confident that Chief Justice Roberts will be fully cognizant of the qualifications for Barack Obama to enter into the office of President of the United States before he administers the constitutional oath.

    And whatever SCOTUS decides, it will be on a 9 to 0 vote.

  22. The mainstream media has lost all credibility with me. I am finding myself accessing it less and less as I have lost confidence in their reporting. Anyone who reads your suit and your blog knows that your suit is non partisan and is meant to uphold the Constitution.

  23. Consider this “confession” from John Swinton, New York Times Chief of Staff. “The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, so what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. They pull the strings and we dance.”

  24. Angelo,

    The only thing that I have been able to find is US Code that covers these situations, other than that I find nothing in either the Constistution or any other US documents.

  25. Angelo,

    I have only found a definition in US Code, the Constitution seems to be silent on it and I have found nothing else in US legal documents, is there nothing else to go on?

  26. piecemaker8 Says:

    Bloggers – Read Leo’s words literally. Barack Obama, under no circumstance, can be found eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. The citizenship of his parents disqualify him. Barack Obama could walk on water and still not be eligible to become President. READ THE ENTIRE UPDATE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING YOUR COMMENTS. THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ARE IN LEO’S TEXT.

  27. I assume the purpose of this response was to comment on the Kansas City Star story which is indeed riddled with misfacts.

    The important thing is that Leo’s case is strong enough in my mind to be taken up by SCOTUS on the issue of ‘natural born’ citizenship. The framers clearly made a distinction between a citizen such as themselves that were born under british jurisdiction and loyalties, and natural born citizens born in the U.S. with no such loyalties at all. The degree to which that loyalty is rooted makes no matter. ‘Natural born’ was intended to mean no loyalty whatsoever, including dual-citizenship. The framers didn’t say ‘half-natural born’. In addition, the 14th amendment has been misconstrued by subsequent rulings on the meaning of its citizenship clause without original intent being properly considered, and without those rulings being based on the national law as opposed to ‘common law’ thinking.

  28. On the Indonesian citizenship of mother and son:

    I suspect that Stanley Ann and Barry obtained US passport(s) before they went to Indonesia and they returned before the passport(s) expired. They probably also obtained Indonesian passport(s). Although it would not have been legal, they probably used the Indonesian passport(s) in Indonesia and to exit Indonesia and the US passport(s) to reenter the United States. When in the US, they could have renewed their US passport(s).

    The passport information would tell us a lot. It is interesting how the international travel in Dreams occurs at approximately five/ten year intervals, the term of a passport.

    Did you notice that the family portrait is in the San Francisco airport? I wonder if San Francisco was the airport of (re)entry for Mr. Obama, his father and his mother.

  29. […] Let’s move on to the Leo Donofrio case to be heard at SCOTUS conference Friday, December 5, 2008. […]

  30. An article appeared in the Chicago Tribune today that is full of lazy investigative journalism, deceit by omission, and fact twisting to suit their political purposes. I wrote the journalists (using the term loosely) a letter pointing out two primary errors. You can read the article here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-ad-03-dec03,0,3124041.story

  31. Angelo, I believe his webserver is overseas and that is why the time is ahead.

  32. Katie, I can’t believe (actually I can) that they answered you with one sentence. They don’t want to hear it. Plus, I can’t believe that Sean Hannity isn’t railing on this. I wonder if they have put the muzzle on him as well…

  33. David Mivshek Says:

    Hey Leo. Once again. It’s dumbness. Bad journalism equates to a journalist with a dumb mind, meaning they’re not smart enough to comprehend the material they’re reporting on. If they do understand the information they’re investigating and attempt to cover up the truth by printing lies, that makes them dumb too. So either way they’re dumb.

    They went to school, got some grade, filled out an application, dressed according to their employers rules, then read some cue cards. Wait! Sounds like some of those that campaigned for president, but it appears that the campaigners’ application process was incomplete.

    Quick Thought: Clever people blindly think that others are as intelligent as themselves, therefore when they see others acting dumb assume that those not acting intelligently are commiting an intentional fraud. It’s just dumbness no matter how you look at it.

  34. Leo, I absolutely share your ire that people continuously misstate your case. Notwithstanding everything else on your plate, please, try to remember your aim is to persuade people, including the court, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is ineligible to be POTUS. Alienating the people you want to disseminate the truth will restrict your audience. Please, refrain from characterizing the conduct of people who get out an imperfect version of the story. Rather, just describe what they did. For example, “I guess the MSNBC policy is to make up stories now”; “[a]s anyone with even the slightest bit of awareness knows, my lawsuit is…”; or “[o]ne would think reporters would actually use the resources SCOTUS makes available to them” only gives the wrong impression that your reasons for pursuing this issue are less grounded in the principle at the heart of your endeavor than in eliciting praise at your legal acumen. You got the ear of the press; kiss their feet, if that’s what it takes, not to foreclose that venue.

  35. The South Says:

    Leo, just wanted to give you kudos for a job well done! I guarantee you that Obama and everyone in the DNC are at home at night behind their private computers reading this and every other blog out there contesting Obamas eligibility.Don’t think for a second that Obama himself isn’t reading this blog saying to himself “these pesky Americans” are about to ruin my dream.If i get into office i’ll make it so they can NEVER question my authority again!

    So, keep on keeping-on Leo!!!!!! Obama and the DNC never in a million years thought all this would be happening.They thought they were going to silently take over our country in the middle of the night while we were sleeping.They are afraid right now and don’t you forget it !!!!!!!!!!

  36. Leo, I went to leave a comment on the KCS article, however I see no link to add a new comment! I registered for an account so that I may leave a comment, and there is no way to do so. I have email the article author for help with this issue. (I see many articles with this same problem, so I’m not suspecting any conspiracy in this regard!)

  37. Angelo,

    If you read Donofrio’s “Application for Emergency Stay” you will see his full argument;
    http://www.fortheconstitution.com/download.php?f=donofriostayapp.rtf

    Donofrio quotes the 1790 Naturalization Act “…the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…”. However this was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act which reads nearly identical except for the words “natural born” are removed! This clearly shows the intention of our forefathers.

  38. Leo (and Cort)

    If only the media could be as thorough as you guys are we might get our country back.

    Wishing people, media and regular folks, would understand this is not a case against the candidates personally, but about TPTB (the powers that be) not going by the constitiution. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Praying hard today that Scalia decides in favor of Cort’s case being conferenced also.

  39. […] December 1, 2008 DONOFRIO BLASTS MSNBC’s PETE WILLIAMS Posted by mcnorman under Uncategorized | Tags: berg, Donofrio, msn, msnbc, SCOTUS, williams |   UPDATE:  He is not alone in misinforming the public. […]

  40. The democrat party press and the law: Remember when Clinton was impeached for perjury? Remember the press chanting: It’s all about sex and everyone lies about sex? In the public’s mind, the crime of perjury was forgotten and media’s lies stuck.

    The public saw the impeachment as Republican prudes picking on Clinton because he got a blow job in the oval office and Clinton’s offence of lying then wagged his crooked finger at the public in false denial. The real offence was perjury; not his having had sex in the Oval office nor was it about lying to us on television about it.

    If Leo’s case wins in the Surpreme court and if Obama produces proof he was born in Hawaii, the press will ignore the basis of the law concerning the meaning of ‘natural born’ and turn this into a witch hunt against Republicans, Leo and the Supreme Court. I don’t really care what they do in their propaganda frenzy; the law is the law. Liberals have never felt the law applies equally to them.

  41. Leo I am so in awe of your grit and determination to find the truth and justice in the constitution. Please know that we the people stand behind you and with you in your quest for truth, justice and the American way. I now have hope for this country just knowing there are people like you who put themselves out there on the front line to seek justice and freedom. Leo from the bottom of my heart “Thank You”.

  42. kittycat77 Says:

    Leo, you’re doing a great job and keep up the good work. I can’t hardly wait until Friday. The waiting is killing me and I must be patient!

    One thing that I want to mention is the lady Gail in an above post comments on the MSM and conservative radio not talking about this. I have wondered what is going on with them myself. It seems so unusual. But I found this post at Ann Coulter’s back in mid-Nov, which talks about Mike Church. The lady said that she had heard Mike Church, who is on Sirius Patriot channel and he mentioned that the BC is questionable. She also stated, “…Mike added (to paraphrase) that he knows he isn’t supposed to talk about it because everyone is supposed to be united.”

    Notice that last part….”because everyone is supposed to be united.” What do you guys think that this means?

    Normally Rush would be all over this. I know Mike Savage had Berg on about a month ago and was all over it, and then it was hush from him. This is just crazy!

    Kitty

  43. Leo…What can we expect the outcome to be if the SCOTUS turns your pleading down. Will we have any other options besides the 2nd Amendment and the misery that entails?

  44. Why does it not surprise me that you can’t leave comments at the Kansas City site? Yup, just like MSNBC.

    People need to realize that “the machine” is still at work here. “The machine” is still working hard to cloud the issues and shove their guy into office whether it’s Constitutional or not and that’s what is going on here.

  45. kittycat77 Says:

    One more thing that I want to add about this part, “…Mike added (to paraphrase) that he knows he isn’t supposed to talk about it because everyone is supposed to be united.”

    Whatever it is that they aren’t supposed to talk about is also keeping them from going into Leo’s case. I just don’t know what is going on with conservative talk shows.

  46. When newspaper reporters write what’s WRONG… remember this..

    THEY WERE PAID TO DO THAT!!

    The complaint against the Kansas City Star is that they PAY reporters to write factually incorrect articles.

    When will we wake up and understand reporters are saying what they are PAID to say and what they are PAID to do?

  47. Jim Black Says:

    Hello Leo,

    I am closely following this whole matter of Obama eligibility and commend your efforts. Your case looks very solid. But I was a bit concerned over your response to the WND Fed Ex campaign. It would seem to me that if Obama can’t produce his original birth certificate, that would be very compelling for him not to be qualified. When coupled with your case of ineligibility, due to his dual citizenship, would be a win-win situation.

    Keep up the good fight.

    J. Black

    J. Black

  48. There’s no ambiguous issues here, Berg or with Cort W., we have the XX Amendment to rely on. We don’t need the SCOTUS selecting our President again.

  49. Finally a somewhat ‘unbiased’ report on this issue…YEAY;

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/02/qanda-with-obama-birth-certificate-doubters/

    Keep up the Great work Leo and Cort!

    LEGIONS of us out there still believe in upholding the Constitution which made this nation GREAT!

  50. The “jamming” now begins in earnest. They will gin-up the Mighty Wurlitzer and play the wrong song over and over as loudly as possible.

    They are going to make “the meme” about “natural born = born in Hawaii” and they will do so because they are paid to do it.

    They are going to make the argument “How can someone be born in Hawaii and not be a natural born citizen.”

    They will refuse to report the Constitutional issues in play, and they will paint Obama as a victim of circumstance.

    Which he most certainly is. He is not natural born. He is not eligible to be POTUS. He has done this to himself. To enforce the Constitution will have profound and devastating consequences for Obama.

    That is the power and danger of the meme that is aided and abetted by continued promiscuous bantering about the COLB — the FALSE issue.

    Obama was born a British Citlzen. That he was also born an American Citizen does not mitigate.

    Someone who British Citizen at birth cannot lawfully be POTUS, unless they were an American Citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.

    It that point gets lost, we could lose it all.

    Millions of dollars will flow to make that happen, just as millions of dollars flowed to put Obama there in the first place.

    Wake up and think about what is really going on here.

    Ignore Hawaii.

    Keep your eyes on one UNSHAKABLE FACT.

    Barack Obama was born a British Citizen. That he was also born an American Citizen is not relevant under Article II.

  51. In Palin We Trust Says:

    Who cares what the MSM says…or doesn’t say. The fight for justice has made it this far without their help and despite their attempts to throw the battle off course.

    It is what the Supreme Court says that will ultimately matter.

    Get your popcorn ready to watch these panderers scramble as SCOTUS votes to hear Leo’s case. Barbara-wawa, Katie Bore-ic, and the like will be falling over themselves to get the FIRST interview with him.

    As Justice Thomas remarked-
    What has he done, what have you done, what have we done to deserve the fruits of their labor…those who fought, bled and died for our country’s right to exist…for us to have and live in such freedom? May the United States as we know it not perish on our watch!

    Leo is showing us all how he is grateful for his country and his freedom. He will be hailed as the American who defended the Constitution when others did not have the courage and all of our leaders failed to show up for duty. It is about time “the people” put “the government” back in check in regards to whom is REALLY in charge in these United States.

  52. Leo-
    Please rest assured that there ARE many of us who do understand the differences between your case and others that are out there. I know that your case does not care to see his birth certificate…that it does not matter where he was born. But for me, either way that we can take care of this issue is a win. I think most people that are following the “eligibility” issue just want to see progress in any of the cases. Personally, I would be thrilled if any case could gain ground and catch great press coverage. Sometimes when I read your updates or listen to you I get the feeling that you consider yourself “against” Berg and others who have cases similar to his. Shouldn’t we try to work together to make sure that all of these cases are as solid as they can be. I so appreciate your solid case and fierce follow-through. Maybe others could benefit from your critical eye with their cases!

  53. This is all a bunch of crap, all MOOT cases. Once Obama became PE, there is not sufficient reason for SCOTUS to review Berg, LD or CW. Just follow the law (XX Amendment).

  54. David Mivshek Says:

    TO JBJD.

    Hey bud. Awesome you see the truth in what Donofrio is doing. But I’d like to contend with your suggestion, politely, concerning how he contends with articles that supply misinformation about his cause.

    Ron Paul, for example.

    Major media venues labeled him a quack at first. Ron Paul, this guy this! Ron Paul, this guy that! Blah! Blah! Blah! Ron Paul didn’t kiss their ass, but sat there and took the abuse on camera, then refuted their statements as public poll numbers soared above those for other candidates. Now he’s regularly interviewed on major news networks as a respected interviewee. CNN, etc. Ron Paul… what do you have to say about the economic crisis… about the Federal Reserve… ?

    Why do they seek his advice now? Because those media agencies were proven by the general population and the course of current events to be… once again I must say it… DUMB! It’s true.

    These media companies are not going to change points of view because they are proven wrong by the person they are reporting against because their “opponent” asks them too and is nice about it. They are only going to be traitor to themselves if many people threaten to lower their ratings by speaking bad about them or turning to another news source. They expect people are dumb like themselves, so that’s their target audience.

    If Donofrio appears on many of those news outlets and looks in the camera and just tells them how dumb they are, I’ll only like Donofrio that much more. Let the truth be known! And let the dumb people know it! Maybe that’s what they need to realize they are dumb, afterall.

    P.s. I really mean this intellectually, not as some name calling tirade. Dumb has a real definition, and it must be applied seriously when needed.

  55. Just wanted to comment on the Pete Williams, MSNBC report.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

    I -DID- submit 2 responses. I will paste the response here. The FIRST response was everything past the YELLING – UPPER CASE part:

    Here’s my post on MSNBC

    written by Kat Lawson, December 01, 2008

    I DIDN’T REALLY THINK YOU WOULD POST MY MESSAGE!
    ALL YOU HAVE POSTED ARE HATE STATEMENTS.
    YOU ALL ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
    WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE 17 LAWSUITS REGARDING THE INEGIBILITY OF BARACK OBAMA???? YOU ALL HAVE FAILED MISERABLY IN REPORTING ONE OF THE BIGGEST STORIES TO ROCK THE POLITICAL WORLD — POSSIBLY EVER! THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING TRAMPLED! AND YOU ALL ARE SUCKING YOUR THUMBS — DUH — WAKE UP!!!!!

    (Here’s the 1st comment)

    Pete Williams !!! You are retarded !!!

    1) “The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate.”

    That COLB has been deemed a FAKED & ALTERED certificate by THREE forensic experts!

    2) In Hawaii, a parent can register a child born ELSEWHERE as an HI birth!!!

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

    3) His OWN WEBSITE states he was born a BRITISH CITIZEN because his FATHER was a KENYAN — regardless of where HE was born:

    “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.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    He was later adopted by an INDONESIAN MAN — Lolo Soetoro & LIVED in Indonesia! Studied Islam & has a half-sister who was born there — and has a HI COLB also! Hence, the reason for another lawsuit for fraud!

  56. By-the-way — GRrrrr8 YouTube Video!

  57. Whenever I have been quoted in a small newspaper, the quote has never been accurate. The big media hire the same reporters after a few years of experience and maybe they haven’t learned how to get the story right. Are the mistakes just bigger? Or is it that the news outlets have been focusing on hype for so long that they don’t really know what to do with “real news”?

    At least the issue is coming up on the radar. Something needs to leak out to prepare the public if a decision goes against Mr. Obama’s natural born status. It seems to me that at least one of the suits will be heard for its merits.

    Whatever way you look at it, there are doubts about Mr. Obama’s natural born status.
    1. British citizen
    2. Kenyan birth?
    3. Very likely that he did not take the US oath of affirmation and renounce the other citizenships held as a child, when he reached adulthood.
    Why is it (from fightthesmears)
    “Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his … Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
    And Not
    Senator Obama swore an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounced all other citizenships on [date before 1983]. ?
    4. Behavior during visit to Kenya during Kenya’s recent election. He may not have thought that anything he did was improper and it might not seem so to a US observer, but what did the Kenyans listening to him think? Did it appear to them that he was endorsing his father’s tribesman Odinga?

    That looks to me like a poker hand of 3 or 4 Aces against natural born status or at least natural born behavior if there is such a thing.

  58. Kudos to Rick Montgomery for admitting errors in his article.
    It takes a big man to say when they have fallen short.

  59. Linda Melin Says:

    Leo, thank goodness for honest journalists who step up to the plate. Did he say they will print a correction?

    Also, I have been in contact with KELOLAND NEWS, the news media of all of South Dakota, NW Iowa, NE Nebraska & SW Minnesota and they would like to confirm your case and it’s merit. I told htem you would only do phone interviews but only had Ed Hale’s info to give them. You can contact them direct at 1-800-888-5356. This is their breaking news department and they have my name, as well as yours and your docket#

    God’s Peace to You to help keep you calm through all of this,

    Linda

  60. Some reasons why this appears to be a hot potato to the media:

    “Obama the Trojan Horse”

    From: http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812032845/editorial/obama-the-trojan-horse.html

    …… “But the most compelling “conspiracy theory” came from a woman in California, who wrote:

    “I don’t think it’s about pay-offs to this or that power-that be that accounts for the media blackout. This could never explain the article in the Wall St. Journal by the staunchly dependable conservative James Taranto, who scoffed at the birth certificate issue. Or why Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham and all the others, including Hugh Hewitt, have avoided this issue. Or why conservative radio icons Al Rantel and Tammy Bruce have so quickly done an about-face, even screeching and threatening their call-in audience never to mention the birth-certificate issue. In fact Bruce seemed to experience a personality alteration by declaring loudly and angrily that if any bloggers on her site posted any material whatsoever that alluded to Obama’s birth certificate, they would be permanently banned from TammyBruce.com.

    “To me, it’s reminiscent of the `German thing’ – where ordinary, proud, conservative, responsible Germans suddenly realized that their livelihoods and perhaps their lives depended upon supporting a powerful `new order.’ It was none other than Josef Goebbels who said that the way to take over a country by a relatively minute cabal of fascists was to gain control of two entities: the media and the armed forces. That’s why we heard Obama promise to establish a national police force that was just as strong and well- funded and powerful as the U.S. military. He and his cabal know that they can’t turn the U.S. military, so they’re going to try to set up their own Gestapo.

    “I suspect,” she continued, “that a memo went out en masse to the media from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to mention the birth certificate subject under penalty of losing their licenses to broadcast. Now we have practically a national shutdown of the media, and the only entity that would have had the power to bring this about is the FCC – and not a Saudi who owns six percent of Fox News! For the entire airwaves, in unison, to suddenly take the position that Obama’s birth certificate is out of bounds means that they’ve been ordered not to discuss it.

    “Think about it…every single one of the major radio hosts rebuked callers at the same time – and on the same day in most cases! My guess is that big guns from ACORN and also from the Nation of Islam have gotten to the FCC and have told them in no uncertain terms that if Obama is blocked from becoming POTUS, there will be hell to pay all over America. And obviously these threats were deemed credible enough by those making the decisions at the FCC that they have succeeded. This is nothing less than a political coup d’état! Unless, that is, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Electors of the Electoral College still take seriously their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.”

    “Interesting, I must add, that while the American media have for the most part blacked-out this explosive story, none-other than Pravda has been covering it! “

    Hmmm

  61. I hope Mr. Donofrio sees this.
    This info came from the DD site and the link below is BIG!
    It’s a link to the Earthfrisk blog posting of the Hawaiian Health Services site where their own words differentiate between a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth versus what Obama has posted, forgery or not – a Certification of Live Birth.
    It’s at the very top of their page – you won’t need to scroll down hardly.
    http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog//?p=134

  62. kittycat77 Says:

    From Democratic-Disaster, another lawsuit filed in CA. Note what it says, Leo. You’ll be interested to hear this. This is from Orly’s blog, Gail Lightfoot Vice Presidential candidate for Ron Paul files
    for writ of mandamas with the California State Supreme Court . This is two in California now.

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/lightfoot-v-bowen-new-lawsuit.html

    Note this specifically: “This lawsuit goes more towards the fact that Obama originally had a British/Kenyan citizenship and it wouldn’t matter even if he were born in Hawaii.”

    Kitty

  63. Yo — D.B. Dude. Wrong-O.

    Obama is NOT President-Elect. There won’t be a President-Elect until The Electoral College picks one, just like TEC has picked every other POTUS since the beginning of our nation.

    As of today…

    There is no President-Elect.

    There is no Office of the President-Elect, in law or in fact.

    Fabrications. Look at these fabrications and ask yourself: “Why?”

    These are psychological devices used to effect “command hallucinations” by being acted out in the public eye, programming ordinary folks to presume that Obama is the President-Elect, the process is over, and the Office of the President-Elect is doing the job it’s supposed to be doing under the Constitution.

    And Dude, YOU fell for it. They GOT you. They got millions of others too.

    These lies and the fancy podium signs and the staged press conferences and the media and YouTube techniques are all calculated and based in human cognitive science and psychology. The full court press is on, baby. They know exactly what they are doing here.

    I think none of this shameful political aggression and scandalous trampling of the Constitution is lost on SCOTUS.

    I don’t expect a split decision on these cases. Leo and Cort are either way wrong or way right.

    Look for a 9-0 whichever way it goes.

    ———-

    DBCooper Says:
    December 3, 2008 at 3:49 pm
    This is all a bunch of crap, all MOOT cases. Once Obama became PE, there is not sufficient reason for SCOTUS to review Berg, LD or CW. Just follow the law (XX Amendment).

  64. Leo, I know you don’t post my comments, but PLEASE reconsider your position that natural born citizen only matters at birth. If someone obtains citizenship from another country after being a US natural born citizen, they are no longer a natural born citizen even if they regain US citizenship later on. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a certain status at birth if later citizenship doesn’t count? You could just come back and that person would be no different than a naturalized citizen other than a technicality at birth. Law is based on intent. There’s no way the Founding Fathers meant that it was ok to obtain other citizenship after being a natural born citizen. That would render the natural born citizen clause devoid of any meaning and purpose. A law without purpose will never hold up.

    So if Obama was Indonesian at some point, he would certainly be disqualified as President regardless of everything else. I know it’s a side-issue, but don’t disregard it completely.

  65. You really have to wonder where those reporters get their information — that is, the few reporters who have deigned to write about the Obama citizenship controversy.

    All the stories I’ve read appear to have been based on information (we can’t call it “facts”) from Internet blogs. We know how contorted and confused most of the comments are, especially on certain of the blogs — just a small fraction of comments are factually correct.

    I’ve noticed that many of the comments include boasts of how the writer has sent information to various media outlets or agencies. I usually cringe because, almost invariably, these are the people whose comments are hysterical and factually garbled.

    I’d guess that after a news outlet receives enough of these confused emails and missives they decide they’ll throw a bone to the pack — maybe even get a laugh. Because the news outlets have been exposed to just the more radically hysterical group of communicants, the whole group gets painted with the “wing nut loonies” brush.

    Believing that the “loonies” constitutes the whole of the movement, the reporter doesn’t dignify the story with any real investigative effort; instead, he just goes to the “source”: those blogs that spawned his original informants.

    If the reporters considered the information to be legitimate news, they’d probably investigate and research it. Kind of sad, isn’t it?

  66. Michelle in Texas Says:

    Mr. Rod Miller at 8:55pm.

    Well said. I, too, am very disappointed in Rush’s silence. Perhaps you can get through to him on the phone lines on Friday?

  67. Joss Brown Says:

    Leo’s case has been mentioned in the Berlin newspaper “Berliner Zeitung”.

    Link: http://tinyurl.com/5htjju

    But author Maritta Tkalec made the same mistakes as many (if not most) others: (a) Leo’s name wasn’t mentioned; (b) they allege it’s about the COLB (i.e. throwing together unrelated cases); (c) they mention the full SCOTUS conference, but postdate it to Dec 8; (d) she uses derisive words (“Obama-haters”).

    The relevant part (German): “Obamas erweiterte afrikanische Familie ist groß, es gibt 3,4 Millionen Luos. Man wacht aus der Ferne über sein Schicksal, beobachtet, wie letzte Obama-Hasser in den USA versuchen, dessen Wahl anzufechten. Diese ziehen die Echtheit seiner Geburtsurkunde aus Hawaii in Zweifel, behaupten, er sei in Wahrheit Kenianer. Am 8. Dezember prüft das Oberste Gericht in Washington die Sache. Pro forma. Kenias Presse berichtet ausführlich. Man hat da im eigenen Land so seine Erfahrungen mit der Anfechtung von Wahlergebnissen. Aber Washington wird am 20. Januar 2009 gewiss anders aussehen als Kisumu ein Jahr zuvor. Kein blutiger Ball. Ein Fest der Seligkeit für Millionen.”

    English translation: “Obama’s extended African family is huge: There are 3.4 million Luos. From afar they watch over his fate, observe how the last of the American Obama-haters are trying to dispute his election. They question the authenticity of his Hawaiian birth certificate and maintain that he is in reality a Kenyan. On December 8 the Supreme Court will examine the matter. Pro forma. Kenya’s press is covering it extensively [sic!]. In their own country they’ve had their experiences with the challenging of election results. But Washington will surely look differently than Kisumu a year ago. No dance of blood, [only] a celebration for the beatitude of millions.”

    There’s no mention of the “natural born citizen” issue, only the COLB thing.

    The article itself more or less deals with “Obama-day” and the reverence of Obama in Kenya, with some implications of the Obama-Messiah idea.

    The “Berliner Zeitung” used to be an East-German newspaper, having leaned slightly to the left since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with good quality journalism, especially during the Berlin financial crisis. After a few years of prominence the newspaper has somewhat lost its journalistic influence to the former US-controlled Berlin newspaper “Der Tagesspiegel”, especially due to legal problems arising from split authorities, stemming from the newspaper’s East German legacies, whereas its publishing house, the “Berliner Verlag”, went to the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, as part of the “BV Deutsche Zeitungsholding”, where British private equity manager and newspaper executive David Montgomery is on the board of directors.

    PS: One reader commented on an Obama article in the “Sueddeutsche Zeitung” online:

    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/392/450115/text/#readcomment
    (click on “weitere Kommentare”)

    Explicit mention of Donofrio v. Wells, Obama’s British-US dual citizenship at birth and his “passives Wahlrecht”, i.e. “passive voting right”, i.e. being eligible for election. It says that if the SCOTUS allows the case on Friday, everyone will have to “buckle up”. Now, that’s more like it.😉

  68. kittycat77 Says:

    I’m not really happy with my country right now….America. First off, it’s being taken downhill. Where is the MSM — oh, wait, I shouldn’t even ask that one, should I? Then where is conservative radio at least?

    Come on, guys. Don’t you know, something is going on here with conservative radio and I don’t know what it is, do you? Everyone is asking this very question, what is happening? Is there a gag-order thing that they had to sign from the FCC? What? Let’s don’t just condemn them until we know. Maybe they were given orders by higher up not to speak, I don’t know. I’m not going to punish them until I know. You must admit, they are 100 percent opposite from what they were just a month ago, so something is happening.

  69. Interesting….I read this on the Topix forum from the Tribune ad discussion:
    ———

    Seems there are many well paid internet intelligence workers posting furiously in an attempt to beat back and down the truth that’s circling the universe about Barack’s total lack of transparency and openness.

    I personally served 7 petitions on Durbin, Obama and my Congresswoman, Jan Schawcowsky here in IL. Dick and Jan’s office administrators had no problem signing for my personal proof of service with their real names and signatures, etc. Barack’s office administrators, including two attorneys, refused to not only sign my proof of service, but they wouldn’t even give their first or last names. After refusing to leave until I at least got a first name this lady acknowledged that her first name was “Sarah”.

    This was a HUGE red flag for me and I didn’t know many details about this birth controversy at the time. When I stumbled onto Berg’s lawsuit in mid-September the memories of how I/we – I had witnesses – were treated on June 30th came back in full force.

    Obama is a fraud. He’s hiding something. This opaque energy will destroy what’s left of our country unless he’s brought to account BEFORE he usurps the power of POTUS.

  70. R Lamb

    You give the media too much good will here. They have no excuse in getting the facts of Leo’s case wrong. They could have interviewed Leo or gotten a copy of his case off his web-site. They did not do that; they parrotted Obama – their horse in the race.

    No matter how many “loons” (also known by the media as right wing extremists, racists, sexists, haters, fundamentalist Christians, flat-earthers, Republicans, Conservatives, etc.) wrote to them, the fix was in before they received the first loony e-mail.

    Not all of the folks concerned about this issue are fully informed – that is true. But the reporter’s obligation is to get the facts themselves and present them honestly – not just parrot Obama’s spin. This is what the media does for the power of their party and politicians and it is not anybody’s fault but their own. If they had done their job and honestly vetted Obama and respected our constitution, we would not be in this constitutional mess, would we? In light of this, who is the real loon?

  71. I’ve figured out why the so-called MSM won’t cover this.

    It’s because they already know and have known for some time. And they decided to give him a pass, because their feelings are telling them that it’s OK because his heart is in the “right place”. They say to themselves “it’s not his fault his mother married a Kenyan.” It’s all based on their feelings, not some conspiracy, although it actually is because they do it together. You must remember, a lot of these people are baby boomers, and a lot of baby boomers are still childish even though they are pushing 60. They FEEL it “isn’t fair”. So they gave him a pass. And in being quiet, they hoped no one would notice, WHICH ALMOST HAPPENED. But it didn’t happen. And now they are holding their breath, hoping it will all go away. They are watching all of this carefully.

    Take the clerk who messed with Mr. Donofrio—he’s the same. He sees the case and he FEELS it isn’t “fair”, and his feelings are threatened, so he reacts CHILDISHLY like they all do. They won’t discuss the issues, because their feelings won’t let them.

    It will be amazing to sit back and watch their reactions if the UNTHINKABLE happens! It will be a group pout, because their FEELINGS will be hurt.

    Amazing.

  72. Leo,
    Have I got this right?
    1. SCOTUS grants the stay (12/05).
    2. SCOTUS sets hearing date (12/9)
    3. Evidence is presented, arguments are heard.
    4. SCOTUS makes decision on the merits.
    5. Election is ruled void (previous to 1/20/08).
    7. Congress schedules new election.
    8. Vice President Cheney is sworn in as POTUS on January 20th 2009.
    9. Newly elected president from special election is sworn in May/June 2009.

  73. America will pay for its crimes against humanity!

  74. Attn: Mr. Donofrio, I don’t know if you are still pursuing the McCain aspect of your case or not but I found this might be helpful. In the state of West Virginia’s requirements for U.S. President it states that you must be NATIVE BORN. Doesn’t that in fact mean born on U.S. Soil?

    http://www.wvsos.com/elections/publications/runningforoffice.pdf

    Best regards and good luck on friday, John Boy

  75. Did you know that 1790 heralded another portentious legislative act?

    That was the year Alexander Hamilton sought the charter for The First Bank of the United States, a privately held central bank. The charter was not passed and signed into law until 1791. Hamilton, Robert Morris and the Rothchilds had previously operated The Bank of North America, profiting handsomely from the revolutionary war.

    This is same year the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed, diluting and expanding the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It was an era of aggressive infiltration by the European elite, particularly the Rothchilds. It struck me as a notable confluence of foreign forces and interests with a critical degradation of Article II.

    Remember, the Act of 1795 removed “Natural Born Citizen” from the Act of 1790.

    The penetration of the central bankers, foreign and domestic, into the American political process has unfortunately accelerated.

    The campaign of 2008 may well represent the apex of that penetration.

    The central bankers have certainly penetrated the MSM. Have you noticed how many of our famous talking heads and promoted journalists themselves are not natural born?

  76. It looks like ABC is now trying to trash Clarence Thomas. Look at the way they reported on Leo’s case everyone!

    http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6839c2d7-0ecc-4319-b732-ebef749a71b1

    I had my husband who has a degree in Criminal Justice reply.

    He wrote (in case it’s deleted):

    Why is it highly unusual?

    For a reporter, you should know that it’s pretty much standard procedure for the second Justice to submit the case for conference instead of going around the merry-go-round with all 9 of them individually.

    This report is nonsense! Are you trying to smear Justice Thomas now? I think so.

    Tell your newspaper to read ‘A Reporter’s Guide To Applications Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States’, and maybe you should yourself! http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

    Then he wrote this in another post:

    By the way, while you’re copyrighting and forbidding anyone to even reiterate your article in any way, shape or form, this is the truth about the case: It’s located here on a guy named Leo Donofrio’s blog.

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

    He’s a man from NJ and our state is following it closely. The issue here is that not only Obama, but apparently John McCain and Roger Calero also somehow got on the ticket illegally, since it’s against the Constitution to run as POTUS when you’re not a natural-born-citizen. Notice I did NOT say “citizen”, I said natural-born-citizen, where the forefathers of this country stipulated everyone must be in order to run, UNLESS they were the actual signers at the adoption of Constitution. People seriously need a history lesson, especially those that vetted those candidates.

    This election was a FARCE! I’m very disgusted with the way ALL the parties handled it and the main stream media should be ashamed of themselves most of all! Now you run along son, and report honestly. We Americans are getting tired of this type of shotty education to our young people. I don’t think you understand that when you allow non-natural-born citizens to be your president, you have now opened the door for any foreigner to walk in here and do whatever they want. I hope the USSC puts you all in your place, once and for all!

    —————–

  77. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    Your case against Obama is very good. I think you will win but I have a what-if scenario. I find the fact that Berg’s case is still there to be curious. Everyone knows that he does not have standing but I remember something he said. Berg stated that the first judge could have asked for the evidence (Obama’s Docs.) without ruling on standing. Well could the SCOTUS do the same thing? I really believe the man has way more problems with his citizenship than you do. You said that it would be much easier for the SCOTUS if he had “major” problems. I think Obama is going to argue that the rule is discriminatory or other grounds. He won a fair mandate ect…. Would you then have to argue against him on these grounds? By the way I hope you sign a movie deal because I will be 1st in line (and I haven’t went to a movie in 10 yrs.). Sounds like your living a wild ride. Thanks for effort. You have inspired a lot of people.

  78. I don’t get it… So you area saying that because a british law was in place in Kenya, you insist that the British law trumps United States law regarding citizenship of an US born boy and his US born mother.

    The point would make more sense if Obama’s mother wasn’t a citizen of the United States and was also a Kenyan, but since Obama’s mother had rights as a US Citizen in the state of Hawaii, and bore a child there that she maintains her rights. Therefore how would British Jurisdiction come into play? You actually are asserting that British ruled Kenya’s laws overrule US Law in this case, as you said even “if Barack was born on the Washington Mall”

  79. Leo,

    I just wanted to let you know that we are all pulling for you!! America’s heart and soul is being threatened. Our values and dreams are in jeopardy. I have no doubt that you are on a divine mission. I know that our founders as well as God, himself are with you in spirit. Jefferson, Washington and Franklin are smiling down on you. America is NOT dead. Her spirit is alive and well and working through this crisis!!! From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. Thank you for the passion and commitment to this endeavor. I pray that God bless and keep you safe. I’m confident with God on our side, WE WILL PREVAIL!!!!

    ~ J

  80. Leo, I found this at free republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142619/posts

    That’s probably where ABC got that story. This paper makes a lot of claims you’re not going to like, but I think they did that on purpose so take that with a grain of salt. Including saying they called you and didn’t get an answer by press time. *rolls eyes*

  81. this report is an improvement over the MSM – the “immigration expert’s” commentary at the end is unfortunate.

    afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2273/Thomas-breaks-custom-forces-court-to-look-at-Obam.aspx

  82. Leo, I heard you were considering the efficacy of filing a federal suit using the Plaintiff(s) described in my memo. Hopefully, you will contact me about this. But I want to point out another supporting argument in your case, briefly touched on in that memo.

    The S of S of NJ has admitted – through her staffer – that vetting the candidate as to eligibility is a ministerial function of the job and thus susceptible to a write of mandamus. That is, he told you, ‘we assumed the DNC had vetted the candidate.’ Thus, vetting is an S of S requirement for getting onto the ballot, which vetting they considered before putting BO’s name on the ballot (after receiving papers from the state Party chair); and the Secretary had sub-contracted out that ministerial function to the DNC!

  83. In case you haven’t seen this yet. Don’t know anything about this website (Afro) but this seems to be fairly accurate reporting of the case. I would be interested in Donofrio’s opinion.

    http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2273/Thomas-breaks-custom-forces-court-to-look-at-Obam.aspx

  84. The degree to which the MSM and Obama’s minions willfully cloud and confuse the actual matter of Obama’s Natural Born status is truly disgusting. On different blogs I have encountered many propagandists who are probably working for him deliberately stating false and misleading points. I have not encountered ANYONE who knows what the term Natural Born even means. They always think that it means you were born on US soil, and will go to the end in quoting the 14th Amendment in support of their erroneous (willfully?) position. I am sure that the strict Constitutionalists on the SCOTUS , Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts will uphold the Law and convince the others to do the same, consequences and threats be darned. Keep up the good work!! You are saving us all!!!

  85. Yo Willem,

    What do the SoS’s have to do with TEC? That’s why the cases are moot.

  86. Leo I can’t wait for the egg that will be splashed all over the mainstream medias face when IMHO the court agrees to hear your case. They didn’t even take the time to research that the Supreme Court has historically heard and ruled on cases dealing with the defintion of what constitutes US Nationality and US Citizenship. It took me all of 5 minutes to find multiple cases where the Supreme Court took up citizenship issues, in the early 1900’s, from the State Departments Consular Affairs Manual. Your case I believe drives to the very core of what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it and it is the Supreme Courts Constitutional duty to judge that type of Constitutional question. I believe that not only Justice Thomas saw these facts but enough of the Justices to hear this case.

  87. In answer to DBCoopers question of what the SoS has to do with the TEC, the answer is everything. When you go to vote for President you are not actually voting for the candidate but for a slate of Electors pledge to that candidate. It is the SoS’s responsibility to, by state law, verify that the candidate those electors are pledge to are eligible to be on the ballot. Therefore if the candidate is ineligible to be on the ballot, then that candidate can not have electors to represent them in the TEC. The TEC does not determine eligibilty of the candidate they are pledge to. Their only purpose is to vote for that candidate or to break their pledge and vote for another candidate. The XX Amendment you keep referring to only play’s it’s part after the TEC has voted for and not qualified Candidate and thus finally becomes President Elect. Here is the pertinent section of the Amendement.

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    It states clearly that if the President Elect shall have failed to qualify. You can only have a President Elect after the TEC has voted and selected one.

  88. I think that the Obama slogan has been now changed to “Get over it he is president elect” this seems to be repeated on most of the blogs. If I may say it is apparently not over and there is an issue of natural born citizenship in which the people of America want to be brought to light. Thank you Leo for having the skills, knowledge and pure grit to bring this to the Supreme Court. I for one have never been so involved in politics as I have this election and I will never wear blinders again. I will continue to keep myself involved in politics from this point on until I die because America is a wonderful country with wonderful people like yourself and we need to keep it free. I usually pray for people who are ill or in need of help of some sort and for the first time I pray for an entire country and our supreme court to see the light in this dark story of deceit. Again courageous Leo continue to seek justice and may God put all the tools and information you need right in front of you. Know that I speak for so many when I say THANK YOU.

  89. Joss Brown Says:

    ON JOHN BOY’S COMMENT, which mentions the West-Virginia statutes:

    As far as I know the term “native born citizen” is not in any of the relevant Constitutional sources. While one could then argue that in West Virginia you only needed to be a “native born citizen”, it would still violate the Constitution, rendering that part of the West Virginia statutes invalid.

    Leo has stated often that many people think that by being a 14th-Amendment-“born citizen”, i.e. native to and born in the US as a subject under its jurisdiction, is factually the same as being a “natural born citizen”. There are strong arguments against this view, and this is to my mind one of the main issues that the SCOTUS has to decide.

    But when simply looking at the meaning of word, “native” of course also means “natural”. Therefore an informal translation of “native born citizen” would actually be “natural born citizen”. I’m not saying that this is legally sound—it’s not!—, but it may be the reason why many people equate the two terms. In this case, some people responsible for West Virginia legislature seems to have falsely equated the two terms, and it would be interesting to see if there are also any major cases, where the term “native born citizen” was misunderstoot to mean “natural born citizen”, e.g. by high justices.

  90. Joss Brown Says:

    Boballab: Good post on the Secretaries of State. And they are a necessary part of the process. The article by Yinger explains the history of the Presidential eligibility etc.. If the President were elected from and by the legislature, as originally planned by the Framers, then the SoS wouldn’t have such a big role to play. The President’s citizenship and eligibility would have been defined by the statutes governing the legislature. But since the Framers transferred the election to the Electoral College, suddenly the President became autonomous and needed his own citizenship clause, and logically you then need some sort of mechanism in an election to verify every candidate’s eligibility. Therefore Leo is totally correct about the initial point in his case.

  91. Check out Drudge.

  92. In reference to Ms’s post above.

    When you are born, you are born according to law under both of your parents jurisdiction. At the time of Obams birth (when he was natural born in Hawaii or wherever) he held two allegiances. His fathers (British) and his mothers (US). You cannot, according to the constitution article 2 sec 1 have any other allegiance AT BIRTH to any other country except the USA. Because his father Barack Sr. was a Kenyan at the time, and Kenya was under British rule, Barack Jr. was a British subject and a US subject/citizen. In order to be natural born according to the constitution, you must be ALL US CITIZEN “AT BIRTH” to be considered NATURAL BORN. No ther allegiances. This is to stop people like Hugo Chavez from having a son with an american woman on US soil, and 35 years later he can run for POTUS. The founding fathers made it that way because they did not want ANY foreign influence to EVER be able to serve as POTUS. GOT IT NOW??

  93. Everyone seems so confident that Leo is going to win, but it just isn’t going to happen. A few other blogs are making the case that this is not a court issue and that it is even unConstitutional for the courts to be deciding this. My own Senator here in Florida also makes the same case and a commentor here made a comment on this issue that no one responded to and I would be interested on everybody’s take on this. I asked my Senators to push the issue of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility because they are the last stand in this argument. The first were the voters who were to vet the candidates and vote accordingly. We know from post election polls that most of the people who voted for Obama are woefully ill-informed so no proper vetting happened there. Also the MSM should have been vetting at that time and we know they were pulling for Obama as they now readily admit. The next line in the Constitutional process is for the electoral college to vet the candidate. They will let Obama through. So our final stand is in Congress and I believe we have to get a Senator and a Congressperson to bring the matter up and then a majority has to vote on the issue. I don’t see our Congress, which has no idea what the Constitution is, taking care of this matter, so we are going to be stuck with Obama. Our only option after that will be voting him out in 2012. It sucks, but I think that is the only Constituitonal thing we can do.

  94. Why would you ever expect MSM to get it right? I am pleased that there is any coverage at all regarding Obama’s eligibility issues. Even if MSM fails to get it right, we would hope that The Supreme Court- the enforcers of written law will interpret the facts to see that justice is served. Best of luck in tomorrow’s conference. Any idea how long until a statement or decision is made by them? God Bless.

    PS– Is Don’s post correct that Cheney would be sworn in while this mess is cleaned up? I was thinking-hold my breath while my SUV gets better mileage than her jet- it would be Pelosi.

  95. Joss Brown Says:

    @dsgawrsh

    QUOTE: “A few other blogs are making the case”

    First of all: Don’t believe the blogs. You know, as they say: “loser-generated content”.

    QUOTE: “this is not a court issue and that it is even unConstitutional for the courts to be deciding this. My own Senator here in Florida also makes the same case”

    Then I have to ask you this: If a President is about to be elected and sworn-in, who might not be eligible for the Presidency, that would be the unconstitutional issue here. These bloggers and your Senator are putting the cart before the horse: It’s the usual technocratic end-of-pipe strategy that doesn’t get us anywhere, because it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. Cure the symptoms, but ignore the illness. They are declaring as “unconsitutional” a judiciary process, the only goal of which is to ascertain, whether a previous breach of the Constitution has actually happened. That’s pathetic! And what kind of a Senator is this, who calls the judiciary of the US—let alone the SCOTUS—and its procedures “unconstitutional”? There’s a separation of powers, and if the SCOTUS agrees to allow the case for hearing, there’s nothing he or anyone can do about it.

    QUOTE: “So our final stand is in Congress and I believe we have to get a Senator and a Congressperson to bring the matter up and then a majority has to vote on the issue.”

    Vote on what issue? Declare Barack Obama a “natural born citizen”, like they did with John McCain? This opinion- and emotion-based, legally non-binding, completely preposterous resolution 511? 511 Redux à la Obama? No. At the SCOTUS the case will be in good hands, and only they can decide whether Obama qualifies or not.

  96. Joss Brown

    Very well put my friend. Where in the world do these people get their education from these days?

  97. Sigh some people need to go back and review prior Supreme court law an example of this is Elk v. wilkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins
    This case dealt with an individual that was born to an Indian tribe, on tribal lands, left said lands, renounced any alliegence to his tribe and claimed US citizenship through the citizenship clause. He was denied the right to vote by Charles Wilkins and the case worked its way to the Supreme Court were the court ruled that because of Mr. Elks birth:
    Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.
    While not exact to Leo’s case there is similarity in that the court ruled on Mr. Elks allegiance at birth, that sets a precedent that the court can use in Leo’s case.

  98. I am not at all surprised about the Kansas City’s lack of real journalism. They interviewed me, and one of my students for a story this fall on petroleum engineers. I am at a conference at the time. After playing phone tag for 3 days, then stepping out of the conference to talk to a reporter for 45 minutes (my cell phone minutes, too) and then inconveniencing a student (who specifically asked them not to print salary information) they formulated a negative “kid strikes it rich” story where the only thing they quoted me on was “They are just kids.” I was FURIOUS and will NEVER EVER AGAIN give the Kansas City Star an interview of even the TIME OF DAY. There is no journalism there.

  99. Andre Wojciechowo Says:

    [Ed. – I looked into this. According to the laws of Great Britian and Kenya, it appears that Obama Jr. and Obama Sr. lost their British citizenship in 1963 when Kenya became independent. According to Section 87.2 of the Kenya Constitution:

    Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.

    http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#87

    So Obama became a Kenyan Citizen in 1963. He claims to have waived that citizenship at this point in time. For the purposes of my law suit, it doesn’t really matter because the Constitution is concerned with the status of the candidate at the time he was born. And at the time Obama was born he was a citizen of Great Britain. ]

    just a question, about Obama statment “Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
    on his website is it true or just his wish? Does british citizenship ever expires?

  100. I dislike posting this, but I must: People have remarked to me how difficult the colors are on this site. I use a stylesheet, so I see black type on a white background, but others don’t use their own stylesheets and find it very unpleasant to view this site. Thus, it is my firm contention that you are not getting the readership you deserve.

    Please change to a more traditional theme so that you will be read. Seriously, people are saying rather negative things about the user-friendliness of this blog.

    Wishing you the best, always, and trying to do what I can myself.

  101. Andre Wojciechowo:

    It’s the condition and status AT BIRTH that counts. Nothing else.

  102. Lynn from Texas-Proud Red State Says:

    [Ed. If he’s not a natural born citizen even if born in Hawaii, you don’t have to prove he was born in Kenya. If I’m right, the Kenya theory is moot. My suit doesn’t require any factual proof of facts. It’s just a question of law.]

    First of all, I fully understand the differences between the Donofrio case and the Berg case. With that said, I believe Obama was born in Kenya, making Leo’s case moot. I also believe the truth ALWAYS comes out. It may take more time than we’d like sometimes, but it always arrives at some point. The SCOTUS will look cowardly and foolish for not resolving these issues. Can you imagine that we’re one full year into Obama’s term and we all find out he was born in Kenya? Then what? This is why the SCOTUS must resolve this. But guess what? They won’t touch Berg’s case or Donofrio’s case with a ten foot pole. Because they are COWARDS. History will judge this court harshly on this issue. The points were raised before Obama even became President-Elect, and they will be so cowardly as to not address them. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, I also believe the dual citizenship at birth disqualifies him as a “natural born citizen”. I’d raise the issue, but I don’t have “legal standing”, after all, I’m just a citizen and he could just be my President.

  103. Hi Leo

    Citizen Wells site. 12/7/08: “…Attached is one I just got back from THE SOS IN ARIZONA.” (There is an image of the document too)

    A NOTARIZED AND SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

    I don’t know if this is real, but if it is, it contadicts his admission of dual-citizenship? Sorry.. kinda tired and need to go to bed. Let me know if it is a good as it looks?

  104. Barbara Stewart Says:

    One point people have made is that because the man Obama’s mother “married” first was actually Muslim but more to the point ALREADY MARRIED to another woman, then although by Muslim law she was married to that man, (since by Muslim law a man is allowed to have 4 wives), still, by American law, a man is allowed to have only one wife at a time, therefore since Obama senior was already married, his “marriage” to Stanley Ann Dunham never truly occurred legally by American law.
    Therefore, Stanley Ann Dunham was in fact an unwed mother.

    Because she was an unwed mother, by US law, in that situation, birthright is ONLY given through the mother.

    The unwed mother would have had to have resided in the United States for the year preceding the birth of her child.

    However, since Stanley Ann Dunham says that she lived in Hawaii for the year preceding little Barack Obama II’s birth, she could NOT have passed on US citizenship to him. And this is why:

    BECAUSE

    Hawaii had NOT become joined to the United States at that time, and was not for several years afterwards.

    Therefore, Barack Obama II was NOT given ANY US citizenship at birth.

    Therefore at least in terms of his birth, Barack Obama II has no US natural born citizenship.

    As such, Barack Obama II has NO eligibility to run for President of the United States.

    Darn those anti-bigamy laws anyway!

    Enjoy.

    Barbara

    I am copying this post to a few places in the hopes that Mr. Leo Donofrio will see it and look into it.

    I hope it helps.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: