ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG

[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:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/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.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

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 https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

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.

Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

125 Responses to “ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG”

  1. […] December 1, 2008 DONOFRIO BLASTS MSNBC’s PETE WILLIAMS Posted by mcnorman under Uncategorized | Tags: berg, Donofrio, msn, msnbc, SCOTUS, williams |   UPDATE 120408  ABC gets it wrong as well. […]

  2. David Mivshek Says:

    I am not a lawyer, but find the information amazingly–I guess–easy to understand. Leo, I am so sorry that you have to waste your time re-explaining your case. These people who can’t understand the information just don’t have the intellectual capacity to plug in a few search terms into the Google search bar and sift through a few web pages that explicitly detail what the difference is of the types of citizenship. These “reporters” are obviously not “researchers,” and it’s not farfetched to believe that they might even suffer from some sort of illiteracy disorder. Well, I guess they have a journalism degree or whatever, so that makes them smart enough. Leo, I can only hope that you read my posts and find some sort of amusement to brush off your frustration. I’m so sorry. So sorry.

    Hold on. I’m going to converse with God for a moment:

    God. Can you PLEASE invent smarter people? It’s been 12 billion years of evolution, and although I give you a standing ovation and a gold star sticker for the physical construction of reality, the story plot is very poorly written for a beast of your intellectual capacity, and, besides, I’m sick of having to edit your work.

  3. In every mainstream article that makes a mention of this Donofrio case, it is lumped in with those cases which are demanding to see Mr. Obama’s birth certificate.

    The Donofrio case, as Mr. Donofrio has explained time and again, has NOTHING to do with Mr. Obama’s birth certificate or his place of birth. This case is about Mr. Obama’s eligibility, per the Constitution, specifically that being born with dual citizenship at birth negates Mr. Obama from the status “natural born citizen”.

    We who support Mr. Donofrio and his case, we who want accuracy from the media, have the right to correct them, as Mr. Donofrio does.

    Let the media know that: :”It’s not about the birth certificate. It’s about his dual citizenship at birth.”

  4. Well said.I’m glad you are nailing these guys ASAP. I will see if I can leave a comment.I have noticed in a couple of blogspots that some will still argue your standing and Hillary would have taken him out if it had been possible..etc. Its frustrating how many people are confused on one aspect or another.
    The media is unbelievably “controlled” its absolutely shocking.

  5. Leo,

    It looks like this is starting to creep up in more and more media outlets. To combat the misleading info often put out there you should come up with a release highlighting the points of your case and its evolution through SCOTUS.

    America is behind you. Thanks for your dedication to our Constitution.

  6. Leo–thank you for your work on this and for your unbiased, factual approach. It’s so hard to rise above the fray when the crap is flying every which way. Keep up the good work–we’re with you!
    J

  7. Bill Payne Says:

    Dude – you really really need a PR person to work with you on this. Put out the call to get someone in to deal with the media barrage that will occur.

  8. Historians chuckle at how Kenndy & Daley stole the 1960 election what makes you think this will be any different? Al Franken is finding votes just like 1960 all over again. The enemy is here well funded and dug in deep. Nothing short of blood will solve this problem. Rambo2700

  9. Hi Leo – Glad to hear you are clarifying things on this. Here’s another story riddled with errors.

    http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1185&posts=2

  10. Anchorage1960 Says:

    Leo,

    You made the Drudge Report! They too have it wrong. Our prayers are with you, thanks for all that you are doing…you are a true Patriot.

    Dan

  11. Keep up the great work, Mr. Donofrio! Our Media of Mass Deception is at it again – as usual.

    Funny how they seem to get the stories correct whenever such stories positively reflect upon Obama. However, when dealing with this U.S. Supreme Court story and Obama’s troubling dilemma- they can’t seem to get it right.

    Why?

    Because they are also the MSM – Main Stream of Misinformation!

    God bless you, and THANK YOU so much for pressing on in this extremely important matter.

    Sincerely,
    Christine

  12. What I am actually amazed at is that your case is starting to come out from under the Media Blackout. Sure – they are reporting it wrong – but holy cow – somebody is actually reporting something.

    Keep up the great work!!!

  13. Chicago Tribune story posted today.
    http://tinyurl.com/tribnatborn

  14. You are doing the right thing Leo. Constructively correcting the press is the way to handle this.

  15. FightforAmerica Says:

    Leo, great letter. Seeing and hearing ONLY what you want to hear and see by the Obamabots shows their level of maturity. They simply do NOT want to hear or see any part about being a “Natural Born Citizen”. I think the Constitution needs to be taught from K-12 in school, after all it is the foundation for our country. And for the ignorant people who don’t want to believe what is going down, right now in our country, they should not take anyones word for anything. The internet has provided us with endless resources for information to find out the truths for ourselves. Which I and thousands of others have done. Ignorant people should do their own research and NEVER trust the MSM to tell the whole truth about anything. I think a second grader would understand the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” if it was explained to them. But these so called educated people just don’t want to see, hear or admit the truth.

    Thanks again, Leo. I hope you have a a contract ready for a book deal. you could title it ” The Biggest Fraud in American History and the Ignorance of the United States Constitution”

    Have a great day !!

  16. Neil Johnson Says:

    Leo,

    It is amazing how many news outlets are getting this wrong. Today, Dec. 4, The Arizona Republic reprinted an article from the Chicago Tribune by James Janega.

    The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.

    The remainder of the article is a summary of other lawsuits questioning Obama’s citizenship, with emphasis on where he was born and his citizenship, not whether he is eligible to be president.

    It’s not his citizenship — it’s his elegibility!

    Chicago Tribune

  17. TruthSeeker Says:

    Hi Leo,

    You will want to reply to this story in the Chicago Tribune as well, as it was picked up by the wire services and is appearing in several newspapers today.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story

    The ABC story appears to have been aired only by a local affiliate station.

    Good luck and thanks for pursuing the truth.

  18. John D. Green Says:

    I have sent an email to Mr. Owens asking him to correct his story. Thank you so much for your defense of our constitution

  19. You might want to check this one out, too. It’s the Chicago Tribune and Drudge has it linked on his site:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html

    I writing to these folks, too. Their stabs at trying to be a journalist is just unbelievable…unless it’s intentional. I have no faith in the national media anymore.

  20. Leo – More examples of incorrect reporting – we all knew this was coming so thank you for your efforts to keep us informed to be able to spot these ridiculous reports. Links are showing up on WND.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,3247305.story

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081204/NEWS20/812040355/1170/localnewsfront

  21. Stay after them, Leo . . . and we will too! MSM’s reporting seems to be a deliberate attempt to marginalize your case and others, the issues presented, and anyone who is interested.

  22. blognowandlater Says:

    Great Response Leo.

    Might as well copy that response. You’ll be needing to send it again and again.

    You can see the strategy the media is using on this issue. They want to make it an Obama issue number one, which it is not, and number two they want to make it a ‘Birth Certificate’ issue, of which it is also not.

    Unbelieveable that we not only have to fight the enemy overseas, we have to fight them right here in our own media. Pretty sad.

  23. Good job Leo. I was sticking up for you in the forums under today’s Chicago Tribune article about your case that was also piss poor: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story
    I also emailed the reporter who wrote it and told him to do a little research for a change.

  24. Touche’, Leo! I know how time consuming this is to find & comment on the news (what little there is) regarding your law suit. But, it is something that must be done & you are handling it very well.

    Here is a link I found last night on RallyCongress.com. If true — this is FRIGHTENING — but, suspected!

    http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/view_all/782/#comment-154311

    Thu., Dec. 4, 2008 1:42 AM

    … Attention Americans:

    I used to work for the MSM up until, let’s say recently. I had a career that extended for many years, and I was “let go” for “the good of the company.”

    My crime? I attempted to bring forth the truth about what’s going on. The truth is, simply, Mr. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama, factcheck.org, and a case in the Supreme Court of the United States all say that Mr. Obama was born as a dual national. Yes – he was born a British Subject. That he had any U.S. nationality at birth is
    doubtful because his mother was not of age under the law that applied when he was born. …

  25. Leo, your frustration is palpable. Why can’t these reporters get simple facts right? It’s not as if you are incommunicado, hiding under a rock. Jeesh.

    Hang in there, Leo! You’re a modern-day knight, fighting with your legal acumen instead of a sword. I wish I could join your supporters on the steps of the SCOTUS tomorrow, but I’m stuck on the West coast.

    My spirit & prayers will be with you, as well as those of THOUSANDS of other Americans. God speed!

  26. Free America Says:

    Leo, you are good man. This issue is about to explode. There are blogs all over the internet, some of which are absolutely on fire. Us patriots out here are taking your lead and trying the best we can to educate the masses on the issue of natural born citizen. Thanks for everything you are doing. We are absolutely 100% behind you brother.

  27. Keep straightening them out Leo. Maybe someone will actually get the story right eventually.

    Still have fingers crossed and prayers said that we hear something positive on Cort’s Wrotnowski’s papers today.

    Sending our famly’s best wishes to both you two fine men.

  28. Loved, loved, loved your response to the article!!! I’m wondering if there is not just one journalist out there who will get this right!?! Leo, we are rooting, praying, contacting newspapers and radio programs (local and national), electors, our State Senators and Representatives, family, friends, and even strangers trying to get the word out about your case and the fact that Mr. Obama is not qualified to be President. Please know that there are so many people working diligently behind the scenes and we are not sitting back waiting for you to save us. “We the People” are not going to let this man become President without a fight! I hope that you can feel the support we are sending your way.

    Christie Lynn Lambert-Camp
    Democratic Disaters
    Louisiana State Coordinator

  29. Leo,

    This morning, I sent the following link to a Chicago Tribune article to the email address you were using at the time you had your original blog. Not knowing if you were still using that email address/account, I decided to post the link here also for your awareness.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6145787.html

  30. Michelle in Texas Says:

    Newsflash on BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7764883.stm

    Kenya PM calls for Mugabe removal

    Power-sharing in Zimbabwe is dead and it is time for African governments to oust President Robert Mugabe, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has said.

  31. Tom Andersen Says:

    Leo…

    Here’s another screwed up article. Go get ’em boy! Figures it came from Chicago…

    Supreme Court to consider hearing case challenging Obama’s citizenship

    By James Janega
    Chicago Tribune
    The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by many opponents of Obama’s election.
    The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.
    The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
    Legal experts say the appeal holds little chance for success, despite appearing on the court’s Dec. 5 schedule. Legal records show it is the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama’s election over accusations that he either wasn’t born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
    The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
    Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes’ suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review the copy of Obama’s original birth certificate — which Hawaii officials say is locked in a state vault.
    Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by a man in Ohio whose case also was dismissed. Five more cases have been filed and dismissed in Hawaii by a person currently suing the “Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain (and) USA Govt.” The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and “All News Media.”
    The most famous case questioning Obama’s citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. An appeal was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for “lack of standing,” which in this case means that, because the plaintiff’s alleged injury is shared equally by everyone else, the matter should be left for decision by the Electoral College or Congress rather than the courts, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
    The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio v. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance among people with little knowledge of Supreme Court processes, Volokh said.
    Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard — and not all of those cases were successful.

  32. LEO – the media coverage has definitely increased over the last 24 hours, it will be impossible for you to keep up with it all.

    In fact, I saw an article in which TWO legal scholars obviously didn’t read the case before commenting on it and instead seemed to just answers questions that were presented to them by the writer of the article.

    This case has reinforced my long held belief that reporters are far better trained to do a story about a cat up a tree then to do research, verify that research and present a story on its merits.

    Also, and know Leo is learning this right now . . . but HEADLINE writers are a SEPARATE profession from being a reporter or columnist. The sole job of those writers is to get people to read the story . . . and not necessarily by using the facts.

    Thus, I hope everyone reads Donofrio v Wells carefully and takes a few minutes each day to respond to erroneous reports. Let’s do their job for them, but be respectful.

  33. Perfect. Beautifully written. This is the way to build the record. They really don’t see it living a life locked in a world full of mirrors. This is the way to help them awaken from their institutionally comatose state.

    They are Americans too. They’re just a little slow.

  34. Reporters don’t need to research anymore. Their job is to create confusion. I find it rather strange that they are mentioning it at all though. Very strange after all this media blackout.

  35. Today I saw that several more news sources are carrying the Obama lawsuits story. After reading a couple of them – Denver Post and Houston Chronicle – I noticed similar phrasing in all of them. The articles go back to James Janega of the Chicago Tribune. He wrote two articles yesterday, one for the Tribune and one for Freep.com. It is the article he wrote for Freep.com that is being perpetuated through other news sources and it is filled with inaccurate information. I wrote him a letter pointing out his inaccuracies.

    Bloomberg’s site sent readers to Janega’s first article in the Chicago Tribune.

    It appears to me that most news sources are being incredible lazy in perpetuating an irresponsible reporter’s news story!

    I’m not sure how to post hot links here. If this doesn’t work, please copy and paste.

    Original Chicago Tribune article with James Janega’s email address:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-ad-03-dec03,0,3124041.story

    The Freep article:
    http://www.freep.com/article/20081203/NEWS15/81203128

    The Houston Chronicle article:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html

    The Denver Post article abbreviated it:
    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11133093?source=rss

  36. Yikes…note to self…I’m on Leo’s side!!

    Keep up the good work, good luck and stick it to em.

  37. Man, if you don’t like bad reporting, don’t go on HotAir. It’ll get your blood boiling if you read it. They’re not reporters exactly, but they do have an entry up and they got EVERYTHING wrong. They think that native born is natural born and you can imagine the arguments they make after that.

  38. Mike MacPherson Says:

    Dear Leo,

    Thank you for all your efforts. You sir are a patriot, but as you have shown, that is very very hard. My son and I will hopefully be joining the vigil tomorrow. Many people on many blogs are still screaming that the birth certificate has been produced, not knowing that for your case it does not even matter. Hopefully we get to meet someday.

  39. Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com/) has a link to a story in the Houston Chronicle about cases before the SCOTUS. It is a more lengthy article, and like the others, it also has errors in it.

  40. Leo,
    WLS AM – a large Chicago radio station – has a similar story to the ABC story on their website under local news. The site is http://www.wlsam.com.
    It was also the lead news story on one of the newsbreaks during programming today. I sent them an email about the inaccurracies. Good luck tommorrow. I am pulling for you.

  41. Leo,
    Just want you to know we are all posting comments to the articles that are misrepresenting your cases information! It reminds me a lot of the old fire lines in by-gone days! Keep up the excellent work! We love you and we love OUR most precious Constitution! Fairflight

  42. The media coverage is increasing because the all pull from various sources, then — if they have the mentality to — add their own spin. Then, there are those — AFRAID — to. And, of course — the one’s he BOUGHT!

  43. Leo, Holly here from the other night
    Just wanted you to know I am still around and working very hard on anything I can do
    Hey, on the MSM, they need to be careful, they will regret not correctly reporting your case should the court decide in your favor and I feel that SCOTUS will.
    How is the MSM going to spin thier own stories then? They are swimming very dangerous waters here. This would make Rathergate look like a walk through a candy store!

  44. hey leo you might already have seenthis but just in case not.

    so this will prove even obama is not able to be pres. eitherm the US State Department website at http://www.state.gov/documents…/86755.pdf

    7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States”

    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

    a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 192smilies/cool.gif).

    b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

    c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President — The Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 1

    who says what now

  45. leo clairify with drudge report is were main stream picks up news articles.

    correct them and the rest will follow.

  46. ProudAmerican Says:

    Drudge Report also has a link to another biased story titled “Will Supreme Court take case on Obama’s citizenship?” By JAMES JANEGA Chicago Tribune at the top of the page. I’m disgusted to see how so-called ‘professional journalists’ (at the Tribune) can get the facts so wrong.

  47. Our prayers are with you and all those on your team, Leo!

    And, a friendly request to TruthSeeker: let’s help Leo by writing to the reporters or news outlets ourselves, to point out their errors. If we can’t explain it, then we can refer them to Leo’s blog – it is all explained clearly there. If enough people make noise they might get it right next time…

    “TruthSeeker Says:
    December 4, 2008 at 11:27 am
    Hi Leo,
    You will want to reply to this story in the Chicago Tribune as well, as it was picked up by the wire services and is appearing in several newspapers today…”

  48. I am glad some of the mainstream media is covering this, even though it is probably to cover themselves. Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will address your case properly, on behalf of the Constitution.

  49. correction I know obama isn’t able to be president but the article I first posted will help support that this is all about upholding the U S constitution.
    It not a one way sword.

  50. sliderblaze Says:

    journalism = four letter words BIAS/DEAD

  51. Leo, “stay the course”. If SCOTUS does their job correctly there’s going to be an upheaval in this country that will make the late ’60’s look like a picnic and it will all be Obama’s fault. We hope your diligence and fortitude will be rewarded by SCOTUS doing the right thing.

  52. Hi Leo –

    The MSM can no longer ignore this, they can’t keep a lid on it and it looks like it will explode all over them very soon. If nothing is done, that too will look bad. Thank the Lord people are learning about this. If they didn’t, it would end up in the recycling bin.

    Blessings,
    Scott (“The Political Pastor”)
    http://www.baptistandreformed.org
    http://blogtalkradio.com/isobamanaturalborn

  53. It’s true that other media outlets have flubbed the facts here. But I’m not sure it matters – I just don’t follow the argument here. If Obama was BORN IN THE US, then he is a US citizen. PERIOD. In fact, even if neither of his parents was a citizen, he still would be. You are trying to take the phrase “natural born” and twist it into somehow implying that someone is only “natural born” if both parents are already citizens. But there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the Constitution to support that.

    The Constitution requires that one AT LEAST have US citizenship by birth, not AT MOST! So just because he may have had additional citizenship ON TOP of his US citizenship doesn’t invalidate the fact that he has still met the US citizenship requirement. Was Obama born in the US? YES. Does that make him a citizen? YES. Your own convoluted interpretation of the phrase “natural born” is not supported by the text of the Constitution, it’s just an alternative definition that you made up to support your pathetic anti-Obama crusade. Get a life loser.

  54. Leo,

    If you’re keeping track and still slapping them down, here’s another story that’s not accurate….another full time job, trying to educate the uneducated. Good luck brother!!

    http://www.borderfirereport.net/sher-zieve/obama-too-important-to-respond-to-us-supreme-court.html

  55. Leo,

    IF SCOTUS sets this case for Oral arguments, you will need to buffer yourself from all the press requests you will be getting. You will need to spend your time on the case and not correcting the idiots in the mainstream media. I wish you the best.

  56. I have to ask……… Does Rush Limbaugh have anything to do with this rediculous case? I ask because I have read that he is good buddies with Clareance Thomas, a jerk who should have never been allowed on the SC.

  57. Suggestion Leo:

    While it is important to have your responses to the MSM media messing up coverage in your blog, please keep a headline right near the top which links to the exact merits of your case and a downloadable copy of your brief. You have to make it easy for people hitting your blog for the first time to find your brief and your key points in blog format about it. So somehow have a “sticky” link up top that stays up top which is bold and obvious that takes a newbie to your blog directly to your synopsis of your case, just the key points in summary language, AND a place there to download your brief. This is Marketing 101 and you have to understand that people coming to your blog the first time will likely not scroll down very far to find the “meat” and “essence” of your arguments. So have it as a bold headline link up top of your home page landing in your blog. Writers coming to your blog can then find the meat of your arguement too without having to wade through all the problems you have had with other writers, etc.

    Just a suggestion. Keep up the fight!

    Goat

  58. There will be an article on the Donofrio petition Conference by SCOTUS tomorrow in tomorrow’s (Friday’s) Washington Times. This time I think the media will get it a bit more accurately. Mr. Donofrio is doing a patriot’s work.

  59. I hope SCOTUS does their part as well as you’ve done yours.

  60. You have argued repeated that Obama has “admitted” himself that he was a “British Citizen” at birth. Do you have a screen shot of him being quoted of him saying that in a news story or elsewhere? Obama has carefully avoided saying anything about his citizenship other than he was born in Hawaii. He has always had his lawyers and spokespersons speaking for him. Thus he has plausible deniability later. He can say, I never said or admitted that. Thus if you do have his words from his on lips online or a video, be sure you have taken Screen Shots or downloaded it. And get Screen Shots of those statements in his Campaign sites and StopTheSmears site, etc. And others of you out there reading my words, help Leo, and go searching for any direct admission by Obama that he was a British Citizen or Subject at birth. You got to find it now on the net. Because once Leo’s case gets more traction in the O-Bots eyes, they will start scrubbing the net of any and all evidence. And the incriminating campaign sites and FactCheck.org sites on the British Citizenship comment will be taken down. Of that I am sure. So copy/download the evidence now, and quick. Boy, would I love to see Obama under oath and cross-examined about all the salient issues about his exact citizenship status, the Indonesian citizenship and passport he used to travel to Pakistan while in college, etc. Just a humble suggestion.

    Keep up the good fight. Go Leo!

    Goat

  61. May Almighty God bless you for your valiant efforts to preserve our
    beloved country from those thieves who would steal it from us by destroying
    the Constitution little by little. Let’s not forget how the SCOTUS destroyed
    the right of private property with the Eminent Domain decision of a few years
    ago. We must not allow them to do it again.

  62. mayflower Says:

    Since the media is printing up so much BS..maybe I’ll tell them I’m a journalist and make crap up too and send it in to them.Maybe I’ll say the Supreme court justices have decided to have an Obama-fest week to hear all Obama eligibility cases.Everyone is granted free “standing” for one week only.Copies of the Constitution will be handed out to all government officials and journalists.

  63. Just another example of a blogger getting it WRONG once again! Food for liberal thought, I suppose

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/_citizen_yes_but_not.php

  64. Fellow citizens…keep writing to the people who are getting the story WRONG. I keep trying. I wrote to Pete Williams and told him of the mistakes in his NBC article. I actually sent him the youtube of Leo’s interview and let Leo verbally point out the mistakes in the Williams article. Here is Mr. Williams flippant reply….not taking any reponsibility for his error filled reporting.

    “Many thanks for passing that along. I think everyone gets mentioned on
    You Tube eventually!

    -Pete Williams
    Justice Correspondent”

    pete.williams@nbcuni.com

  65. I don’t mean to be snide, but doesn’t your argument fail on its face? You are saying Obama was born in the US but had British citizenship at the time of birth. The first section of the 14th amendment makes all persons born in the US citizens. I assume your argument is that if he has concurrent citizenship that concurrent citizenship trumps the American citizenship? But that would violate the Due Process Clause of the same section of the 14th amendment. An formal logic you are saying X is A and B. X must be A to be X. X is B, therefore X is not A. Therefore, X can not be Y.
    Where is your precedent?
    xoxo,
    Law student avoiding finals

  66. ““We the People” are not going to let this man become President without a fight! I hope that you can feel the support we are sending your way.”

    You did and you lost. 69 million Americans voted for Obama. I suppose you want the SCOTUS to pick the prez for you like they did in 2000. Give it up, the media is out there treating this story for what it is and America can see through the hate.

  67. leo,

    I emailed the guy a link to your website and he has updated the article. Not sure if it is correct now though – have a look

    good luck tomorrow!

  68. Sean Hannity mentioned the Donofrio case by name at the beginning of his radio show. But he then just talked about “the birth certificate” issue and said that he trusted Obama to tell us the truth about his birth!

    Sean Hannity, you have proven yourself a hypocrite! How can you “trust Obama” about anything!!

  69. Dear leo ! Go gettem , you are RIGHT and this needs to be up held !

  70. David Mivshek Says:

    WARNING —

    Although it is important to be heard, protesting on the Supreme Court steps will not further Donofrio’s case in a positive light.

    Imagine for example, you wake up one morning and go out your front door. Standing in front of you are a hundred people with signs and chanting slogans saying you should strongly consider joining their religion or denounce that you’re religious at all (thiis is just an example, so play along). Will that make you listen to them? Will that make you change your mind? Or will that just make you go inside and call the police or at the very least feel annoyed that all these unwanted solicitors are at your front door?

    When have protests actually made a difference? Look at how many marched against the War on Terror. Look at Ron Paul’s protests he’s staged, and how many thousands showed up, then consider how many media outlests actually covered the events… close to ZERO.

    Rabble-rousing should never be considered a form of influencing a decision, especially in the Supreme Court. THAT IS DANGEROUS! But if the Supreme Court doesn’t uphold it’s duty to follow the Law, and makes decisions based on popular opinion or nefarious reasons, then, by all means, rabble-rouse. But let them do their job without distraction first.

  71. carpediem Says:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/04/supreme-court-hear-obama-citizenship-suit/

    Another inaccurate report.

    Article is dated today, the 4th: “The Supreme Court judges’ conference today will consider….”

    Way wrong – conferences are regular events – this conference is also, and will consider several cases, but as you know, each are considered separately: “The judges’ conference today resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship at birth.”

  72. ****** NEWS *****
    LEO

    Just heard that the Berg Case may be going to conference………see
    Obamacrimes.com (the Berg site)

    It is imparative that these cases be kept separate.

    It does seem that the MSM is setting us up for “THE decision”…….It is the wording that the MSM is using that may be the key to what will come next. They are all really stupid or the “news” articles are scripted. They all say the same thing………”his BC shows he was born in Hawaii..end of argument”

    Keep the issues SEPARATE………..the Donofrio case is a dual citizen case with split loyalties ……Dual citizenship AT THE TIME OF BIRTH

    (Berg is a PLACE OF BIRTH and CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH case having other CITIZENSHIP issues)

    the campaign seemed to be won on keeping the talking points exact…………maybe the above statements could serve to do that…..keep it simple.

  73. Keep up the excellent work, Leo! Praying for you and the entire nation that the Constitution may be upheld! May God’s Spirit of Truth guide each and every one of the nine justices. God Bless the USA!

  74. Time to get out the fly swatter ~

    Just got my Yahoo News Alert for Leo Donofrio —

    http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?fr=yalerts-keyword&c=&p=Leo+Donofrio&ei=utf-8

  75. http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/04/obama_birth_certificate_case_heads.php

    Chicagoist also gets it wrong their Headline: Supreme Court To Consider Obama Birth Certificate Case

    Not only that they have Obama’s Certification of live birth posted under the Headline.

    Here is the first paragraph:

    Yesterday we explored what we thought was a benign attempt by a fringe political group to raise a ruckus over Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Boy, were we wrong. While we’re not putting on our tinfoil hats, it definitely has earned our attention. There have been several lawsuits filed regarding the release of Obama’s birth certificate, including one by former Obama opponent Alan Keyes, and now one of the cases has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court will consider tomorrow whether or not to hear a lawsuit brought by Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, a suit originally intended to delay the election.

  76. Chicagoist Editor Marcus Gilmer

    marcus@chicagoist.com

  77. Leo,

    Would you comment on the political consequences of the Court taking your case vs the Berg case?

    If Obama is found ineligible because of your argument, he might be able to argue that he had no way of knowing that he was ineligible, as the Court had never ruled on this particular aspect of the natural born citizen clause. He might arguably be regarded as not guilty of election fraud.

    However, if he is ineligible because it is demonstrated that he was born in Kenya and he knew this, he would find it impossible to avoid the accusation that he sought the office of President knowing he was ineligible. This would support the case that he committed serious criminal fraud in accepting contributions and in attempting to undermine our system of government.

    Accepting your argument might be less politically disruptive, although the effect on the electoral college election would be the same. Do think the nine might take this distinction into account?

    Or, perhaps they intend to get around to the Berg case as well. Obama cannot reasonably claim any executive privilege as Nixon did (in his case with at least a fig leaf of justification). That court as I recall unanimously ordered the secret tapes revealed. A later court was also very intolerant of Clinton when he asked not to be sued until after he left office. I would think they would care much more about Obama’s unjustifiable refusal to produce non-privileged documents than about what questions might arise after these were revealed.

  78. Bob Anthony Says:

    TruthSeeker, you’re right about that article being on an ABC affiliate. In fact it was WMAR-TV ABC 2 in Baltimore, interestingly enough a place once called home (And I think it still is) by one Alan Keyes.

  79. In reply to tb:

    “tb Says:
    December 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    I don’t mean to be snide, but doesn’t your argument fail on its face? You are saying Obama was born in the US but had British citizenship at the time of birth. The first section of the 14th amendment makes all persons born in the US citizens…”

    If you read Mr. Donofrio’s blog and refer back to the case documents that he has posted on his blog(s) you will answer your own question. It’s not about citizenship. There is a difference between ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen’. The Constitution specifies ‘natural born citizen[s]’ are eligible to be president. Not just any citizens who were born on US soil, and may have dual allegiance or are subject to another jurisdiction. See?

  80. David Mivshek Says:

    “December 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm
    “tb Says:
    “I don’t mean to be snide, but doesn’t your argument fail on its face? You are saying Obama was born in the US but had British citizenship at the time of birth. The first section of the 14th amendment makes all persons born in the US citizens.”

    Amendment 14:

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

    Article 1, Section 2:

    “No person except a ‘natural born Citizen,’ or a ‘Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’ shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

    TB: As a law student you must be more detailed in your inspection.

    Nowhere does the 14th Amendement state that a Citizen is a “natural born Citizen.” And according to Article 2, Section 1, someone who is President must be a “natural born Citizen,” unless the person is just a Citizen during the adoption of the Constitution, which we can all agree the candidates in question by Donofrio were not.

  81. John D. Green Says:

    Terry Owens has corrected the mistakes he even replied to my email on the matter.

  82. In Palin We Trust Says:

    NEW AMERICA MEDIA Gets it right…well, for the most part.

    Article linked here is copied below:
    http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=91f3d495aef4a4952d363ab87b52c6a0&from=rss

    Justice Thomas Forces Supreme Court to Probe Obama’s Citizenship

    Afro America Newspaper , News Report, James Wright, Posted: Dec 04, 2008

    (December 3, 2008) – In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

    Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

    The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ — just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

    The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

    Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

    Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

    Donofrio is questioning Obama’s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not make Obama “a natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers’ Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey.

    McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua.
    After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level.

    On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner.

    Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s office on Nov. 14. Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues – known as a conference – and scheduled it for Dec. 5.

    On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

    Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

    Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade. “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. “This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

    Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

    Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members.

    Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – appointed by President Reagan – and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth.

    It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

    Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

    “The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”
    Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

    “There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

    Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

    “This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,” she said. “Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

  83. What REAL difference is there as to whether Obama is or is not a “natural” born citizen: it doesn’t change the person that he is or his “real” qualifications to take on the Office of The Presidency. I think the election speaks for itself!

  84. thetownecrier Says:

    Stay strong AND smart!

  85. Dear Mr. Donofrio:

    Living inside a distressed country has not been easy for anyone. Some of my discomfort is directly related to those who have betrayed the American public. Thank you so very much for caring about our country, our Constitution and attempting to uphold our fore fathers genius. Your willingness to stand tall in the storm of radical division has brought tears to my eyes. I wish there were more men like you.

  86. […] of Mr. Donofrio, he published this interesting response to ABC’s inaccurate story (seen today on Drudge) regarding his […]

  87. David,
    So? You are saying there is a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen and that that distinction is that a natural born citizen was born a citizen. Duel citizenship in your concept makes you not born as an American “naturally.” That is fine, but where is the precedent? The whole political question doctrine of the Supreme Court is on my side that the Supreme Court will defer on this question. For example see: Nixon v. US (not that Nixon) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/. I think even Scalia and Thomas will be against you.

  88. Leo-
    Thank you for your hard work and dedication to the U.S. Consititution. You are a true patriot. As for the MSM, it’s sad to say but you will get more accuate information from sucribing to Aljezerra News. Pathetic but true.

  89. NBC must be getting desperate about this story, as now they have Keith Oberman on it, today. He called these cases that are wanting to determine if Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen “a bunch of cramp”; I only have one thing to say about this…ok, maybe two.

    First, what kind journalism is that? “Cramp”, since when did the mainstream media start talking like this? And where is the fair and balanced news that journalism / communication that everyone has been screaming about????? Shouldn’t this apply to television /MSM, too!!!!

    And second, per my lessons as a child in school, I learned what is going on with the mainstream is called P R O P A G A N D A. If not?… then where is the other side, the balanced side to this story in MSM…please show me???

    Thank you, Leo, for pursuing this case. I’ve been praying for you, this case, and that judges will have courage, wisdom, strength and intergity so that the that the Constitution may be upheld.

  90. tb Says:
    David,
    So? You are saying there is a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen and that that distinction is that a natural born citizen was born a citizen. Duel citizenship in your concept makes you not born as an American “naturally.” That is fine, but where is the precedent? The whole political question doctrine of the Supreme Court is on my side that the Supreme Court will defer on this question. For example see: Nixon v. US (not that Nixon
    =========================================
    MINE IS ONLY A LAYMANS OPINION BUT I THINK THEY DEFERRED THIS CASE BECAUSE THIS JUDGE HAD ALREADY TAKEN THE OATH OF OFFICE
    IN OBAMA CASE BEING HEARD TOMORROW, HE IS STILL ONLY A PRESIDENTAL NOMINEE AND HAS NOT TAKEN THE OATH YET, THERFORE THE SCOTUS CAN RULE ACCORDING TO THE CONSITUTION STILL.
    I DONT SEE WHERE THIS CASE HAS ANY CONNECTION AT ALL TO LEOS CASE

  91. President Obama! (I bet this is going to be a long four years for you.)

  92. The Wall Street Journal can’t even get it right.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D

    The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.
    Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

  93. tb I put this up in another thread:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

    The question then was, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his or her birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating him or herself from his or her tribe and taking up his or her residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

    Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[2] 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. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[3]

    The Supreme court ruled that at the time of Mr. Elks birth he owed immediate allegiance to the tribes not to the US. Here is a US Supreme Court case that deals specifically with allegiance at time of birth and how it effects citizenship. While not exactly like Leo’s case it shows a precedence that allegiance at birth can determine if you have US citizenship and what type of US citizenship you have.

  94. Somebody feels important!

  95. It’s totally shocking that ABC would get the story wrong!!!

    But what do you expect from the MSM?

  96. Vincent Wolodkin Says:

    The letter that you posted at ABC news in response to their less than accurate article was taken down. I took the liberty of re-posting it. They took it down again. This went on for quite awhile and now they seem to have blocked my IP. I am constantly amazed that the main stream media is so close minded. I mean, I understand they are mostly liberal, but this doesn’t seem like a liberal/conservative thing to me. Oh well. A friend of mine is making the extra effort of calling ABC news and complaining about their censorship. If I had the time, I would call Limbaugh today. The funny thing is that other people started to ask where the letter went and they removed their posts as well.

    Good luck today.

  97. Boballab:

    I suggest you review the Snyder Act of 1924.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924

  98. I have reviewed the Snyder act, however you missed the point. Starting with Elk v Wilkins the Supreme Court showed that the 14th Amendment does not grant all person’s born on US soil US Citizenship, and still to this day bars children born to foreign diplomats in the United States citizenship due to that at birth the child has allgience to his parents government. This sets a precedent that the allegiance a person has at birth determines your citizenship. Sen Obama had at birth Dual Nationality under the existing Citizenship laws of both the US and the UK so at birth he had alliegnece to both countries.

    Cases of interest

    [edit] Native Americans
    In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship. Those who wish to become citizens must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Children born domestically to American Indians were actually under the jurisdiction of the tribe, which itself had no allegiance to the United States, and was therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Subsequently, Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

    The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is legislation that was based on precedents set in the Supreme Court Insular cases:

    7 FAM 1121.2-2 Court Decisions
    (TL:CON-66; 10-10-96)
    a. In the first decade of the 20th century, in a series of court cases often
    called the “Insular Cases”, the Supreme Court developed the rationale
    that, absent specific Congressional legislation or treaty provisions—
    (1) The Constitution has only limited applicability to U.S. territories;
    and
    (2) Inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States acquire U.S.
    nationality-but not U.S. citizenship.

    The reservations of the various Indian tribes are considered Unincorporated territories. These reservations fall under Article IV section 3 Para 2.

    In a series of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States, referred to as the Insular Cases, the court ruled that territories belonged to, but were not part of the United States. Therefore, under the Territorial clause Congress had the power to determine which parts of the Constitution applied to the territories.

    So in summation the Snyder Act is a piece of legislation that deals with a precedent set in the Insular cases that Congress has to specifically grant something in a Unincorporated territory, it has nothing to do with the precendent set in Elk v Wilkins that allegniance is set at birth not later since Mr. Elk renounced his allegiance to his tribe later in life but still didn’t qualify for US citizenship. That precedent when applied to Sen Obama is that he had Dual allegiance to both the US and the UK at birth. Even though Sen Obama has lost his UK citizenship later in life he would still be inelligible to be president since he would not be natural born under Article II. Article II is based on the letter of John Jay to George Washington were he writes:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [Emphasis of born in the original source.] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

    There clearly is the framers intent that your allegiance at birth is the determining factor if you are natural born or not. This was also the basis for Elk v Wikins were allegiance at birth is the determining factor. Since at Birth Sen Obama had foriegn allegiance he can not be natural born.

  99. John Stackman Says:

    [Ed. Note –

    If “Natural Born Citizen” is just a technicality why did the framers include only the word “Citizen” as a requirement for Senator or Representative. in the very same document? The court has never defined the distinction.]

    Natural born is not specifically defined in the constitution. The president elect had absolutely no control over his father’s place of birth and was not even raised by his father. He barely knew him in fact. IMHO, that makes this a long shot and basically a legal technicality.

    I have absolutely no respect for those who wish to undermine our democratic processes through the use of legal technicalities. It is unamerican and the results if you succeed will be disasterous for this Country and may even result in the dissolution of the union through peaceful or not so peaceful means, especially when the economy is ruined and the country is already so divided politically. Is it really worth it just to have your way? The term natural born is not defined clearly enough to let it cost this much in treasure or bloodshed as will happen if those whose side lost this election do not accept the loss.

  100. I don’t know if this is the case, but I see in my own local paper disinformation articles designed to confuse the public, such as “Crime at 30 year low”. Then the next month a headline will say “Crime spirals out of control”. Is that what ABC is engaging in? I don’t know, but a confused public likely will not have much of an opinion.

  101. who is [Ed. snip, [please no insults]… only the shadow knows. the supreme court is subverted and perveted like most other courts.

    goldieshouse.piczo.com

  102. Wrotnowski’s case has been referred to the Court and Scalia has sent it to conference on December 12th.

    If Donofrio’s case has just been dismissed, why would Scalia do this? It is more positive than before folks. Work out the logic!!!

  103. Update!!!!!!

    Cort DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008!!!!!

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

    Now Leo, can they hear it Friday & make a decision the same day???

  104. I hope you are right but deep down i feel this will be covered up by the government

  105. Also Leo why not deny this today if it was a dead issue??? WHy have it go to conference Friday????

  106. The Supreme Court has posted its denial of 08A407 (the stay of the election AND the writ of certiorari). Case closed.

  107. Michael Budnicki Says:

    I don’t particulary give a rat’s ass why the case was not reviewed, however if there is any slightest shadow of a doubt about the President elects eligibility it had better be reviewed. The Supreme Court will be negligent in their duties and responsibilties to protect the United States and the American people should they ignore this issue. It is not as though the American people are asking them to perform a miracle, only to simply ensure the laws of the land are being followed and I assure you, this issue will not go away untill such time that we the people are satisfied. Battles have been fought over far less. I demand the Supreme Court act immediately regarding this issue for the safety, security, and peace of our nation.

  108. Michael Budnicki Says:

    Furthermore, I sure as hell don’t want any doubt about the man who will command our Armies and send them into harms way to protect this Country if I’m not damn sure that man is an American! The Supreme Court make the law of this land? I suggest you get your damn heads on straight and stop being so concerned about BS like same sex marriage ya dopes!

  109. […] outlines his argument concisely on his blog in a letter to ABC News: The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British […]

  110. I am on FB as Synnove Bakke… I have been following this case closely and I also posted a video of Pete Williams and his misleading story on the Birth certificate lawsuit on Dec 5th. My friends and I are so upset that your case was dismissed today!
    We are also going to bring it up on Young Guns Conservative Blog talk Radio, and was hoping you, Donofrio could call in.
    I am also a Resident of East Brunswick and only found out today that you are too!:)

  111. I knew it was coming!!

    In 2000, the Supreme Court were touted for their strict adherence to the Constitution when they awarded the presidency to the conservatives’ choice, but when the Court refuses their wishes in 2008 they’re perverts. You gotta love it.

    Next time try winning the old fashioned way — with the votes of American citizens.

  112. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”

    In this context, a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen by birth. This is as contrasted against a person who became a citizen by going through the naturalization process.

    Only a citizen by birth can become president.

    A member of Congress could be a citizen by birth, or a citizen by going through the naturalization process.

    There are two (2) types of citizens, not three (3).

    What the founders meant by natural born is obviously a citizen by birth.

  113. moving on…

  114. Chris,

    Al Jazeera English is actually quite well-respected, though it may be slanted toward the Arab world (which is to be expected, as it’s based in Doha I believe). A few years ago they started reporting in English.

    Congressional candidate Allen West from Florida got an interview request from a reporter at Al Jazeera earlier this year. He thought he we being kidnapped by a terrorist organization, so he called the FBI. Kind of funny actually.

  115. Leo, I am sorry for being dense here…please help me to understand why the Supreme Court link you gave above shows Cort’s case was refered to the full court and distributed for consideration on the 8th for a review on the 12th. I am sooooo confused!

  116. Please clarify this for me. So you’re saying since under British law, Obama is also born a British citizen and so can’t be president of the U.S.? I don’t understand how laws of a foreign government can prevent someone from being President of ours? For example, what if Nicaragua passes a law that all persons born in the U.S. are automatically granted Nicaraguan citizenship at birth? Will that then preclude anyone from ever becoming President?

  117. Rockingale Says:

    Larry P:
    Sorry, there ARE 3 kinds of citizen:

    100 years ago Alexander Porter Morse wrote that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders of the Constitution were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.” In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born. … A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country
    Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.” If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.'” Instead the Framers were careful to specify “natural-born” not just “native-born.”

    The jurisdiction of the USA over both parents is also a key issue to remember here. At best, Obama was only 50% USA jurisdiction at birth, because his father was not a US citizen.

    reference:
    John Yinger;
    Alexander Porter Morse, “Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President,” Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99-100.

  118. i am really surprised as to how Mr.Obama is not a natural born citizen if he was born in hawaii,if hawaii was a united states territory at that time of his birth.If there are any specifications AS TO HAWAII IS NOT A PART OF UNITED STATES mr .leo is absolutely patriotic with his law suit and Mr.Obama shouldn’t have been elected.
    My first point,how could some one wait till he became a president and then challenge after a historic win.It all looks really ridiculous.Every one should realize we are talking about the president of united states the super power in the world not about some one who was not unknown till yesterday and then suddenly AN UPROAR ON A STREET .

  119. […] Then, right after the election, there were some newspaper reports with respect to Leo Donofrio’s cases (an attorney whose cases we will discuss in length in the next chapter) where the main stream media tended to get his case wrong or mislead the public regarding his case(s).  Leo provides an overview on two such reports in his blog post entitled:  “ABC News Gets the Donofrio SCOTUS Story Wrong.” [x] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: