December 6, 2008  6:36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Chester Arthur had something to hide.

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

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

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

Is this the twilight zone?

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

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

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

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

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

And it’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio  COPYRIGHT 2008


  1. WOW!


  3. Thank you Leo… Your research is amazing.

    I believe Chief Justice Roberts is a man of honor and integrity, and, given the information you’ve clearly put before him, I cannot imagine he’d participate in the inauguration.

    When things settle down for you I encourage you to watch “Man of the Year” with Robin Williams (if you’ve never seen it); it contains some interesting parallels :)…


  4. Mr. Donofrio,

    I would like for you to write a brief, concise description of your case, complete with case law and history and post it to your blog. I and others would like to send it as a letter to the editor of every newspaper in our respective communities. We would also like to send it to every local citizens group or club. We can defeat the deliberate misrepresentation and inform middle America that this is happening. I don’t believe for a second that the vast, vast majority of America, no matter how they voted, would stand for this if they were properly presented with the facts.

    If a few thousand of us printed and mailed, or emailed this information, we coul reach people that do not have access to the internet or who do not get their news from non traditional media.

    My prayers are with the nation tonight,



    i am glad u feel better and are continuing on with your drive and strive to be the best at this leo. and i think you are rocking with your journey to help those of us who do not have the ability to approach the courts as you do. i and everyone watching this site now have the audacity of hope. please do not stop as you are being feed energy thru the air from all those who follow your plight to address the court in this matter. thank you so much for what you are doing and i slaute you. god bless

  6. Wow Leo! I wonder if Obama is aware of Chester Arthur’s case? It’s really amazing that there could be two people this devious ascending to the Presidency. Keep up the good work.

  7. Joss Brown Says:

    From a historian and archaeologist——to you, your sister & Mr. Dehler: CHAPEAU!!!

    (This is one of those moments, you know…)

  8. historiandude Says:

    [Ed. Note – Nobody looked into Arthur’s father’s naturalization because they were all looking into whether he was born abroad, just like until October 27, everybody was looking at Obama’s BC, and nobody was looking into the fact that he was a British citizen when he was born. It was hiding in plain site right beneath the COLB at fight the smears. People were hypnotized by the BC and neglected to look at the real issue right in front of their eyes. Same thing happened with Arthur, Hinman whipped everybody up to a frenzy saying look over here to the right, but the real shizzle was going down on the left.

    Also, Arthur fabricated his father’s immigration history, age, where he arrived in the new world, his mother’s time in Canada and his own age… plus he burned all of his papers. By changing his age, he threw another wrench in the fabric of history. I don’t blame you for being confused. So was everybody else.]

    I am confused.

    You have now established that Chester Arthur’s father was not a US Citizen when he was born. So… we now know that your previous post designed to explain Arthur’s “lies” as a one year shift to cover up this issue has been rendered both moot and absurd. Arthur was fourteen when his own father naturalized, and no one year shift could disguise that fact.

    Now… does there exist an example of where Arthur was challenged BECAUSE his father was not a citizen? In fact, all we have seen is that he was challenged on his PLACE OF BIRTH. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

    His opponents were already sensitive to the potential of having him disqualified on “natural born citizen” status… but do not appeared to have ever considered his father’s citizenship as relevant.

    Does this new discovery not establish the precedent that at the time of Chester Arthur’s run for the vice presidency, “natural born citizen” was understood ONLY to refer to PLACE OF BIRTH?

    Your thoughts are appreciated.

  9. John Nada Says:

    Interesting. This makes one wonder how well-versed that instructor of constitutional law, Professor B.H. Obama, is in the Chester Arthur presidential eligibility story. Maybe he did the same research that you did, but a couple of years earlier.

  10. Awesome research, Leo. You will go down in history as the one who actually unmasked all this history as well as the one who tried to save our country from a modern usurper Kudos to you for all your hard work. The Arthur story was fascinating to me and I am usually not that much of a history buff. I guess because of what I am seeing unfold before our very eyes in 2008…it makes the similar Arthur story that much more interesting to me.

  11. Creativeogre Says:

    Excellent work Leo!

    Unlike the early 1800’s, the power of today’s internet works both ways.

    Now, were any of the laws or treaties signed by Arthur, while President nullified? and what impact would this revelation hold today in regard to any of those laws?

  12. Concerned citizen Says:

    [Ed. Note – Thanks. Fixed it.]

    Leo – I write for a living; I’m a paralegal. This one line didn’t make sense to me: By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years after his father had naturalized. Should “after” be “before”? This historical information on Chester Arthur’s deception is facinating and, like you said, it sure does seem like we are in the twilight zone. You don’t have to post this. I just wanted to see if that sentence was correct. Have you ever thought about teaching law, especially constitutional law? You can explain things so well. As your listening/reading public, we have really had an education! I am praying you are successful on Monday. I would love to see you have your day arguing this issue before the United States Supreme Court.

  13. [Ed. Note – “It’s like deja vu all over again.” Yogi Berra]

    The Chester Arthur research is incredible! It is this case all over again! Berg is the modern day Hinman!

  14. Great sleuthing!

    So, now–how will the SCOTUS view this in terms of a precedent?

    What a blemish this is, and will anyone have to examine what things he signed into law? I mean, don’t some things need to be examined and corrected?

  15. Great job Leo!!!

  16. [Ed. Note – The truth is more important than anything. If I found anything which ruined my theory, I would print it immediately.]


    You’re amazing. Keep up the good work. However, I hope the opposition camp of Obama can not use something in what you dug up to justify the continued candidacy of Obama. Keep up the good work digging. But try to not inadvertently help the other side. Let them do their own digging for possible precedence. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Mountain Publius Goat

  17. Leo, et al in this forum,

    How do you make a posting here of a URL such that it is an active link. Every time I try to do a post with an “http://” with a URL, the post seems to completely disappear and not even show as “awaiting moderation”. A little lesson or instruction as to how to do that here would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.


  18. Great job.And no,you are not in the Twilight Zone.Bloodlines are more important to the elites than our Constitution.The fact that the birthplace was hidden shows they knew way back then precisely what NBC was defined as without the need of anyone interpreting for them in any courts.And two wrongs do not make a right.It cannot be used as a precedent,because the law was broken,not changed,amended,or overlooked.Had it been found out back then, Arthur would’ve been hogtied and imprisoned.Many lineages are hidden to keep people believing in the election process.Nowadays,most people do not care so some of it is in the mainstream as coincidental quirks of history.In a nation of 300 million people,the odds that 2/3rds of our presidents are bloodline related is astronomical. Below are two mainstream links on this amazing subject,and one on the explanation of true history,including family trees. You’ve come a long way in a short time.Leo,I know you don’t like to get sidetracked with conspiracies.but that is what geopolotics and stock markets,and international banking is all about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xDaF9KKqec http://www.heptune.com/preslist.html The author of the following was railroaded and put in prison over his work,a fate better than the late
    William Cooper and several other patriots exposing the NWO agenda….. http://oneheartbooks.com/resources/ebooks/bloodlines_of_illuminati.pdf

  19. Leo;


    That’s what I was refering to last night. History and Genelogy usually confirs Citizenship and blood linegae through the father.

    I am sorry that I was a bit tongue-tied last night and wasn’t able to get my point across clearly.

  20. kittycat77 Says:

    Maybe this is nothing, I don’t know. I was playing around on LDS genealogy one day and put in Stanley Ann Dunham and the year 1960, plus or minus 2 years. It pulls up that her and BO, Sr. were married in 1960. However, most of the places list their marriage in Feb. of 1961. I think 2/2/1961. Of course, this could be a typo too. Maybe BO, Sr. was really born in 1960 or something. Don’t know if it would matter in this case unless it just throws everyone off looking for info on him.

  21. @ Puma Libertarian

    Perhaps that is the subject of Obama’s hidden senior thesis? (^_^)

  22. kittycat77 Says:

    Correct, I meant to say, Maybe Bo, Jr. was really born in 1960…

    Not Sr., sorry.

  23. Ah, but here’s the rub. As a practical matter – we appear to have had a usurper (and even on similar basis) – and contrary to all of our worries and all the lengthy reasoning of E. Vieira, nothing terrible happened. So this leads a practical person to discount all the fussing.

    And before you reply that this is a legal issue and not a practical issue – let me say this. You would be right if it ever got to court. But first you have to overcome the hurdle of cert. That is where human emotions and practicality come in. Sigh.

  24. wayfaringstranger Says:

    [Ed. Note – Nothing is clear about it. They didn’t look in the most obvious place. And even if they did, the starting point would have been based on a bed of lies.]

    Great digging and vastly entertaining results.

    I read your editorial response above explaining why they were focused so much on Arthur’s own birth place, but… to me, that makes comparatively little sense. They were clearly looking for whatever they could throw at Arthur.

    Especially since Hinman was investigating Arthur’s having been brought from Ireland, mightn’t it be merely that the assumption you are going under concerning Natural Born Citizen was not one that they operated under?

    It’s just a thought, but I figured I would share it.

  25. [Ed. Note – I dodn’t say Obama was a student of Arthur. I admit the coincidence exists. Regardless, Obama’s father was a British Citizen. It was common knowledge.]

    If Obama was a student of Arthur, so to speak, following the same magician’s slight of hand… then why did he reveal his dual citizenship at the onset of all this? Was this just his confidence that the BC would be such a strong lure that the British citizenship would go unnoticed though mentioned. Was he relying on help from McCain et al given McCain was also possibly working similar issues (but a much different story)?

    Anyway your research is brilliant and the microfiche popping up at this time seems more like destiny than just good luck.. well done! A lot of people are behind you all the way.

  26. Summernite Says:

    Leo, thank you so much for all of the work you have done in this case. I have sent a letter to each of my Senators and Congressmen below and I am so hoping that they will set aside their partisianship as 2/3’rd are of Liberal minded.
    There are three concerning issues I have, one that I have written to you recently on. Each of these issues directly ties into the original issue that I have written about surrounding Obama’s eligibility to POTUS. Both of the issues that I have are related to issues that I have heard generated by Democrats in either the House or Senate or both. The first issue I would like to talk about is regarding the issue regarding the 401K’s presented in counsel to the house.
    Both my husband and I have taken an early retirement from our jobs after a collective 72 plus years of servitude to the work force. We have spent several years and have made sacrifices during these years so that we would be able to live comfortably during our retirement years. Our concern is that we have heard that congress is now discussing that the government should collectively annex ours and everyone else’s 401K’s for the good of the whole. Let me make myself perfectly clear, over my dead body will the government in any way take the money that both my Husband and I have made and work so hard for so that someone else can live more comfortably. As far as Social Security, I and my Husband have paid dearly into this fund. Either the government finds a way to correct the errors it has made or pay us back. That was never your money to spend on those that never deserved it. I’m talking about illegal aliens here that have stolen identities that the government refuses to investigate.
    My second concern regards the “Censorship Doctrine” formally called the “Fairness Doctrine”. Not only has this issue been discussed in Congress, Senator Schumer of New York spoke brazenly regarding shutting down free speech on radio. Again, let me make myself perfectly clear here. Myself as well as 30 million others will March on Washington to stop this Marxism. Liberal’s have every TV channel, every Main Stream News Paper and nearly every Cable station including a Taxed Paid from my pocket National Public Broadcast to voice your liberal views. The only venue that a Conservative minded person of this nation has to hear like minded subjects that is free from the Propaganda spewed by the left is talk radio. Trust me when I say that 30 million ditto heads of Rush Limbaugh will not stand for you to take this away.
    How this ties into my first subject of Obama. Regardless of how the courts decide, Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen. You can spin this issue anyway that you desire, his father was a British Citizen of Kenya and passed that citizenship down to his son. Any laws or treaties that he signs will be questioned and subject to legal suit due to his duel citizenship and that fact that he has had allegiance to another Country other than ours.
    Our nation, by the vote of the Electoral College will either move forward with a Qualified Candidate for POTUS or they will proceed with electing a foreigner that will put this nation into a Constitutional crisis. The above subjects will all be impacted on how the vote is conducted on the 15th of this month. I’m asking by this letter that you take each of these issues extremely seriously, as each issue in itself was protected to me by the Constitution on which each of you have sworn on the Bible to withhold and protect.

  27. [Ed. Note – It’s not precedent since the world just found out about it today. Chester covered it up with lies.]

    Does this new discovery not establish the precedent that at the time of Chester Arthur’s run for the vice presidency, “natural born citizen” was understood ONLY to refer to PLACE OF BIRTH?

    And does this not mean that SCOTUS and the Obama supporters will use this to defend the idea that he is an NBC?

  28. [Ed. Nore – It will be interesting to see how he is viewed in light of this.]

    Great work Leo and a big thanks to your sister and all that helped.

    My ? is can this in any way effect anything that was done my this man while in office. I am thinking stuff that needed his signature to be legal.


  29. Creativeogre Says:

    Leo, Came across this document, which you may find interesting…
    “An Examination of the Constitution of the United States”

    Independent Gazetteer, Philadelphia, 26-29 September 1788


  30. [Ed. Note – that is a coincidence.]

    Wow! How fascinating. And yes, we are in the twilight zone. The theme song cued when I read Arthur’s older siblings were born in Dunham, where Mr. Obama was born of Dunham. You can’t make this kind of stuff up.

    Thanks, Leo. For everything.

  31. [ed. Note – He would be a citizen by the 14th Amendment as long as Wong Kim Arc is good law. ]

    Leo, since BHObama asserts he was a dual citizen at birth, having British citizen status–and U.S. if born in Hawai’i), would he then be a ‘naturalized citizen’ when his British citizenship expired (by his assertion)?

    It is my understanding that a naturalized citizen cannot be eligible for president.

  32. Incidentally,as I mentioned to Orly,alot of accountability problems we have stem from the APA Act of 1946 which have aided the loss of checks and balances in our erstwhile great nation.And gee whiz,the mystery man Obama comes on the sceme to cause all this trouble “coincidentally running concurrently with the financial collapse and restructuring of the financial and geopolotical landscape. http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Purpose_Behind_The_Financial_Crisis http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/timeline.html

  33. [Ed. Note – exactly Melissa.]

    Excellent information, Leo.

    If Chester merely had to be born on US soil to serve as President (as so many people insist is the case for Obama), he wouldn’t have needed to lie about his past, right?

  34. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ca21.html

    Did a quick look just in case you haven’t thought to look here.

  35. Maybe it is ironic but the is currently an exhibit at the National Archives: 1783: Subject or Citizen? incorporates 60 archival treasures from the vaults of both institutions, including the rarely displayed 1783 Treaty of Paris which is from the U.S. National Archives.


  36. Wow!

    Barack Obama, aka Chester Arthur, aka Barry Soetoro.

    How many aliases are we up to now?

    One more question. Does the Library of Congress track who’s been checking out Chester Arthur material?

  37. Leo, you are at about 75 percent perspiration right now. You have the next 24 percent to use in the coming weeks. Your one percent Genius is amazing!!
    God is good and prayers are being answered quickly. I see the Lord’s hand in this and just as Pastor Manning said the other night, “Nothing stays hidden, it all eventually comes to the Light” I can’t imagine what Chester Arthur was thinking when dying with this secret. My Father told someone when he died with a terrible secret he kept. I wonder if Chester Arthur told someone?

  38. You know, if I were a kid doing a history paper on this, the birthdate would be the first thing to jump off the page. It’s just odd to me that no one questioned more until now.

    Even here at http://history.searchbeat.com/chesteraarthur.htm, it first says,

    “Arthur was born in Fairfield, Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829.”

    Now scroll down to Quick Facts and you’ll see this:

    “Date of Birth October 5, 1830”

    Arthur apparently was no saint. Bribes, corruption, civil service reform… yup, twilight zone!

  39. God Leo… This is exceptional!
    You guys have got to be floating on air!!!
    You people are inspired and I applaud you!

    Lori and Kenneth

  40. wow!!! this is incredible, andayou will have made a name for yourself along the way in the history of two men who #w1 who got away with the subtefuge and #2) who might still get away with his own representation of a fiasco that could potentially put our Country at risk, only this time the risk and the threat would be far greater.

    Keep on keepin’ on Leo, you are made of/for greatness. You will no doubt, when this is all over, have a wonderful future. Your first steps have been long and hard ones to make stick, but you will prevail.

  41. Excellent research.

    This article has been circulating on the ‘net since the wee small hours of 12/5 and is submitted for the perusal of all:

    The Donofrio “Natural Born Citizen” Challenge


    It is intended to be instructive to those of us who are not constitutional lawyers (a group bearing my allegiance). I hope it helps in this regard.


  42. That is fascinating Leo. History does repeat itself. We have to get people off this birth certificate issue and get them to look at the real problem at hand – dual citizenship at birth.

  43. [Ed. Note – No such thing as precedent from fraud. It could only be a precedent if it had been part of the public story of Chester Arthur, meaning everybody knew about it and accepted it as being cool. Not the case. During his time, he lied to obfuscate his family history. And he was a lawyer. Not cool. Not precedent. If it comes down to this, and Obama has to rely on Chester’s Arthur to argue precedent, I think he’ll be in trouble.]

    Does this mean there is a legal precedent for Obama if he is found to be a dual citizen just because Chester Arthur has been a past president and a dual citizen. Does the fact he concealed and lied about his dual citizenship matter? How will the supreme court view this if it considers your case, as a precedent or as just an historical fact? Will this help your case because you exposed the fraud of Chester Arthur? Its all very interesting. Thank you for all your effort. I hope you expose Obama for the fraud he is.

  44. I’m sad to say I was caught up in the Berg case and didn’t learn the details of yours until well after the election. Having read the pleading, I don’t see how the SC could ignore this case. It is very straightforward, and there is clearly an issue regarding lack of oversight, if nothing else. This is especially interesting to me since I married a British citizen, and we just had a baby here in the states (I’m American) – I’d been wondering what his citizenship status is! I guess I won’t ever be “First Mom”, but Obama being kept from the presidency would more than make up for that!

    It is uncanny how similar our current situation is to the Arthur fraud. I knew absolutely nothing about Chester Arthur before reading about him here, and it is very interesting indeed. It’s hard to believe that someone is getting away with the same kind of deception in this day and age, with all the information and resources available to the public. Sadly, I fear that even if the SC does take the case and find Obama ineligible according to the Constitution, his supporters and his friends in the media would much sooner abandon the constitution than abandon their chosen one. People are so ignorant, it disgusts me. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama knows he is ineligible, but he believes the Constitution, like everything else, is negotiable. He got where he is by loopholes and technicalities, after all.

    I can certainly understand why the framers wrote the Constitution as they did. It is readily apparent that Obama DOES hold allegiances to his father’s Kenya, as he has already meddled in their political affairs. I do not trust him to do what’s best for our country.

    I am praying that the Supreme Court does take up this case! Thank you not only for filing suit, but also for keeping this blog up-to-date with interesting and educational information.


    As soon as the crank is turned one or two more times (in regards the USSC), Obama will withdraw “for medical reasons”.

    All his records will remain suppressed/hidden. All the suits will become moot. The truth will never be known. Not only about Obama but all those who were accessory to treason. Any foreign influences seeking to destroy our country will not be revealed.

    Obama will go into semi-retirement as a martyr and a victim. He will be a racial hero and a beacon of social and fiscal reform. There will be monuments and holidays. Streets and schools and cities will be named for him.

    He will get enough money from those who supported him to live a life of quiet luxury.

    We will avoid a constitutional crisis, but no justice will be served.

    Perhaps, as in a famous bit of dialog in the movie The Sting, this will have to be enough.

    ( I want y’all to save this and look back and see if I was right. )

  46. The court has declined to take up your argument and I imagine because they rightly discern that it was a mistake to have injected themselves into the election in 2000 and it would be an even larger one to do so now.

    [ed. Note – From today’s Washington Times:

    A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/ ]

    I’m no historian or constitutional scholar so I’m ill equipped to refute the evidence you site, so for convenience sake, I’ll assume all that you say is accurate. Your argument for your interpretation is plausible and defensible.

    This question of the interpretation of “natural born” has apparently not been definitively settled by the Court in past decisions and their is apparently some ambiguity on the issue that the Court could clarify if it chose. The judges seemed disinclined to do so.

    I imagine their reasons are varied. Avoiding a repeat of their involvement in the 2000 elections, which has done damage to the Court’s legitimacy in the eyes of many is likely one factor. The Court should avoid being drawn into the political combat of the parties.

    They ARE constitutional scholars which should mean they divine something I cannot about your argument, so perhaps they concluded that it had no merit at all.

    In law school there was an adage that said that exceptional fact patterns make for bad law. Perhaps they concluded that your interpretation constitutes a difference without a distinction and there was insufficient justification to clarify it as you suggest. It violates what I suspect the average man and woman on the street believes being natural born means in a way that does not add value to our freedoms. One cannot choose their parentage. That a person born on US soil to at least one parent who is a citizen is insufficient to grant them every right afforded to people situated only slightly differently seems arbitrary, indeed I would argue, is arbitrary.

    That is perhaps the most compelling reason I can cite to reject both your interpretation and its application in this instance as it applies to Obama and to McCain. Your approach requires us to make a distinction without a meaningful difference that adds any value or amounts to any qualitative difference. Your interpretation requires us to disqualify from service as President a man who has lived a life of public service in and out of the uniform of the United States and endured tremendous hardship for his country. Your interpretation requires us to disqualify from service a highly intelligent, accomplished and possibly brilliant politician who galvanized
    over 52 million voters and shifted the perception of America around the world upon his election.

    Even if we assume that your interpretation is actually correct, I would argue that the result of its application shows it to be of no value added, that it does not advance the cause of freedom, in fact perhaps quite the opposite. Under these circumstances, the Court perhaps shows a great deal of wisdom in declining to clarify the issue as you have suggested and leaving this ambiguity intact.

  47. Joss Brown Says:

    By the way… no matter what fraud hides behind Arthur’s Presidency, isn’t his father’s naturalization record just beautiful? 🙂

  48. Leo, Thanks so much for all you hard work – sure hope that it pays off for the betterment of this great land of America!!

    The research you have done on some of our past Presidents is to be commended as well!! It sure has been a good history lesson for me!! I had no idea of any of what you mentioned. It was so good to be filled-in. You do have a clear and concise way of writing – I’m grateful to you for educating me in the part of our history that you have written about!!

    I do hope and pray that you accept the “offer” of Chris which was made at 9:26pm this day – as I do believe that as many of us Americans as possible deserve to know of your “great work on their behalf!! and why you saw fit to take it on!!

    I’m taking it that you will respond to “Chris’s” offer by way of this “blog”.

    In the meantime I’m referring individuals to this site.

    Will continue to pray for the success of your case, but regardless of the out-come you are a real and true “asset” to the American Cause!! All the best to you!!

  49. U.S. Constitution Says:

    Have you added this information to your Supreme Court case? This would definitely stop Obama from taking the Oath.

  50. I find it incredibly ironic Arthur passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the Foran Act in 1885.

    Don’t you?

  51. FYI I thought you might be interested in this item that I just ran across @

    Obama Denialism: the Electors Respond
    December 6th, 2008 · 1 Comment · Author – Ames, Politics
    Per Patrick at Yes to Democracy, one elector’s humble reply to a deluge of e-mails from Obama denialists, demanding that he refuse to certify Obama’s victory:

    December 6, 2008

    I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.

    After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by “experts” or others whose qualifications and
    motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship was worth my understanding.

    Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the “natural born” status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector. In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And has never been required by the United States government to become
    “naturalized” or take the oath of citizenship. This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.

    If someone emigrates from another country to the United States, and wishes to become a citizen, that person must enter a legal process culminating in taking the oath of citizenship and being “naturalized.” This is why for example the current Governor of California cannot
    claim “natural born” status and become the President of the United States. He was born an Austrian. He emigrated here. He sought citizenship. And he was “naturalized” in a ceremony conducted by United States officials.

    And there is also in the United States the use of Common Law as a part of our judicial system. Most of the time the law is codified by us, but in fact there are traditions and understandings which have not always been codified. My point here is that for example if you have a right of way from your property across another person’s property to a road, that person after a specified period of time (dependent upon a particular state’s statutes) cannot suddenly decide that you cannot cross his property anymore to get to the road. It is presumed after a certain period of time that this right of way is a right that you retain since he did not protest your crossing his property for years.

    These are the two bases upon which I have rendered my decision. Even if some or all of the scenarios to which these concerned citizens have pointed regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship are true, two facts remain. The United States government has never required Mr. Obama to take the oath of citizenship, or even to render a decision at the age of majority between having U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship, or U.S. citizenship and Indonesian citizenship. And he has lived here and been reared and educated as a U.S. citizen. It would seem to me that 47 years is a sufficient amount of time to have lived here as a U.S. citizen, with no government entity challenging it, for us and for Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.

    Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.

    It issued him a Social Security number and a passport, obviously accepting his Hawaiian birth certificate without requiring a team of forensic scientists to examine it. He has lived in the United States as a U.S. citizen for his entire adult life. He has been not only a de facto U.S. citizen, he has been a de jure U.S. citizen. A citizenship conferred upon him by the United States government at his birth, and never questioned by any court, or executive branch official for 47 years. The United States government itself accepted his natural born citizenship when it issued him a passport without requiring him to take the oath of citizenship in a ceremony like all other immigrants to this country.

    Therefore, as the Presidential Elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina it is my Constitutional determination that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is qualified to become the 44th President of the United States of America. I will cast my Electoral College vote accordingly on December 15, 2008.


    Wayne Abraham

  52. Misstickly Says:

    Has anyone else seen this microfiche of the Naturalization papers? Anyone named Barack Obama? It wouldn’t surprise me if he had done research on Arthur and how he got around the ‘natural born’ clause. I bet he used him as a model.

  53. Go Leo. I am getting a long needed education . Thank you so much. I will vow to never let the government fool me again. This is an awakening to all Americans to learn and retain history and be a real American. So many of the senior citizens in this country are just riding on the train. Most of them cannot even get dressed in the morning. Dang, there should be a test before you can vote. It is time all should be informed and quit leaving it to others. Educate, listen and really know what this country is all about and how we got it. God Bless you Leo and I want the best for you and this country.
    My meager Thanks

  54. [Ed. Note – Thank you. Im becomming ‘puter dyslexic.]

    Since you bothered to copyright this, I thought I’d mention two minor things.


    hidden in plain SITE. should be hidden in plain SIGHT.

    How would the child naturalization act of 2000 apply to Mr. Obama’s citizenship?

    Now we wait for the Court. May the Justices have courage and integrity.

  55. historiandude Says:

    As far as I can tell, this research is evidence for two things:

    1. Whatever Arthur may or may not have been “lying about,” [Ed. Note – he was definitely lying, his Brooklyn Eagle interviews have been shown by historical records to be false.] it had nothing to do with his father’s citizenship status. None of the identified “lies” would have served to obfuscate the fact of his father’s late naturalization.

    [Ed. Note – Had anybody tried to research pertinent details of William Arthur’s immigration records, they wouldn’t have known where to begin. They wouldn’t have known how old he was, where he landed, etc. They didn’t have Google back then. Arthur instructed his servants to burn all of his papers. He lied about his family’s Canadian stint. He lied about his mother and father’s marriage there and his sister’s birth. And all of those lies while on the campaign trail. ]

    2. At the time he was running for Vice President, “natural born citizen” was understood to be derived only by place of birth, because that is the only criterion used to attack him.

    [Ed. note – in 1772 Bingham, the drafter of the 14th Amendment’s section 1 said that a natural born citizen was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The other drafters said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US meant subject to no other jurisdiction. You’re statement is historically false. As for what they attacked him on, they could only attack what they could see. Hinman took center stage like Obama’s birth certificate. Hinman was proved wrong and people just assumed Arthur was legit. His father had been a citizen for 32 years after all. Plus Arthur was only running for VP anyway… But the fact remains, Arthur’s having been a British Subject wasn’t common knowledge until today.]

    It is all splendid to hypothesize that they were “distracted” by the place of birth argument, but as ad hoc excuses go, assertions do not get more bald.

    This discovery provides the precedent that rather neatly cuts the legs out from under your innovative definition, and it does so two different ways.

    It shows that we have had at least one President who did not fit your definition. And it shows that even though that president was challenged on the issue of natural born citizenship, he was challenged under the more widely accepted definition of NBC, not under the definition that you promote.

    [Ed. Note – the problem with that is it can’t be precedent if nobody knew he was a British citizen. Today the world learned it. The fact that Arthur, a President of the US, was a British subject is not recorded in any historical text. It was hidden and therefore nobody had a chance to challenge him on it. Now, if you can find historical discussion on the record that says he was in fact a British subject due to his father having naturalized after he was born… have it at.]

  56. After reading the letter from Wayne Abraham, the elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina, I have a few thoughts.

    First, Mr. Abraham mentions the fact that in Mr. Obama’s 47 years no government entity has challenged his natural born status and so that makes it okay for us and Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen. When I read this, I wondered, when woulda government entity challenge or question if your citizenship was natural born or not? I have only really heard about it being a consideration in order to hold the office of VP or Pres. Does anyone know of any other situations where your “natural born” status is relevent?

    Then the fact that Mr.Abraham totally seems to ignore the issue of Mr. Obama possessing and claiming dual citizenship at birth makes me wonder if he just doesn’t “get it”or if he is conveniently ignoring that fact.

  57. OMG………reading Elector Wayne Abraham’s thinking is absolutely appalling! He is absolutely clueless.
    ….I am off to throw up.

  58. [Ed. Note – If the election was for two fraudulent candidates then, we need to return the election to the Constitution. The election was overturned by the Repub and Dem parties. The law suit is trying to return the electoral process. If alot of people want to break the law, is that OK too?]

    So we’ve already had an illegitimate president once before?

    We need to make sure that everyone understands how huge the Constitutional Crisis was that resulted – and make sure it never ever happens again!

    We need to make people understand what a mess it made when everything President Arthur did turned out to be null and void.

    It would definitely be a much better move to prevent the person that a large majority of voters chose to be their president, and instead let the courts cook up some scheme to put some other unelected person into the Oval Office.

    The fallout from the Constitutional Crisis would be too terrible to imagine if we don’t get this resolved NOW!


  60. I would like whatever Wayne Abraham is smoking, please. My emperor still has no clothes.

  61. Frank Lake Says:

    Leo, a most excellent find! Regardless if it has anything, in the end, to do with your case. It’s always interesting to find out more about the govt’s ‘hidden’ secrets.

    @John Nada, if that isn’t CLASSIC political speech writing then I don’t know what is!! Hell it almost reads like a “I’m an EXPERT!” blog post and can be easily summarized as:

    “You people don’t know what you’re talking about, but the govt does!”, “…and that really depends on what the SCOTUS says…”

    GOD! LOL!

  62. So, this elector has decided that since, over time, everyone has come to believe that NBC means “born on US soil” then that is the new definition. This is outrageous!

  63. [Ed. Note – Thanks. I appreciate the good vibes.]

    Oh, I forgot to say what I came here to say!!! THANK YOU LEO!!! I am just an ordinary citizen. I hope you realize how sincere everyone is when they thank you for your efforts. I have learned so much just from listening to you and reading here at your blog. I found the research you have done on prior presidents just absolutely fascinating. I do hope you write a book on Chester Arthur and the fraud he perpetuated on this country.

    This whole issue has made me have to stop and think about my own citizenship. My father was military. My mother was from Okinawa. She was not naturalized until I was about 2nd grade. I was born in the US. So does this now mean that I am not a natural born citizen? I never had to think about it before. One of my sisters was born overseas and I know that she had to go to some kind of hearing when she was a child. I always had this idea in my head that she could never grow up and be president but never thought about myself (not that I am presidential material in any way whatsoever!!).

    Anyhow, she is digging up her paperwork and I am going to ask my dad for a copy of my mom’s as she is deceased now.

    I can understand that if you were a politician and were ambitious, that you could be drawn into this fraud. But that may be exactly what we don’t need for president, someone who puts ambition over honesty, integrity and patriotism.

  64. Bravo, Wayne Abraham. His analysis is much closer to the common sense thinking of the average American on this question of being “natural born”. This historical, constitutional analysis on this issue does real violence to the average person’s understanding and I think the court would be justified in rejecting it on that basis alone.

    Leo, I am aware that the court has not yet issued orders announcing that they have declined to act on your stay, but in general, according to a court watcher I spoke to, custom at the court is that cases taken up in conference in the morning and granted a hearing are announced in the afternoon, and those denied a hearing are customarily announced on Monday. I believe the Court is going about its customary business and will decline to hear the case. (I talk about this at my blog in a post entitled SCOTUS Blinks)

    [Ed. Note – More than 90 percent of the cases they look at are denied. But if you go through the order list of the last five or six Mondays, Cert has been granted a few times on a Monday order list. I remain cautiously pessimistic. This isn’t an ordinary case, and The Washington Times was told a decision was likely next week. They didn’t say it would happen on Monday. Nobody knows. ]

    I will look with interest for the court’s orders on Monday.

  65. Tired of Obama Drama Says:

    Political Season’s comment conveniently overlooks the issue of dual loyalties that can accompany dual citizenship. You need look no further than Obama’s actions in 2006 with Odinga in Kenya to question whether Obama has dual loyalties. Obama campaigned for Odinga, a relative of his, as a senator and did so on the US taxpayer’s dime. No one will ever convince me that Obama’s allegiance is solely to the USA!

  66. Joss Brown Says:

    [Ed. Note – I actually do think the electors argument is a good one. According to Federal law the electors must cast their votes “according to the Constitution”. If a law suit raises the NBC issue and fuses it to a SOS statute and oath of office, no harm in trying to get an order restraining the electors. I know you mean well, but I really don’t want to see name calling on the blog. No “lunatics… no Obots… just clear rational thoughts and arguments. “Love your enemies.” JC ]

    @John Nada:

    I’m starting to get angry. Really angry. All these fringe lunatics harassing electors, state officials et al. with their dimwit “theories” about Kenya and Indonesia… it’s getting on my nerves. THIS IS NOT THE POINT HERE, PEOPLE. If you want to help, keep your mouth SHUT about this conspiracy stuff. (Please note: This is directed at the mentioned “Obama denialists”, who wrote the original letters to Abraham, not at you, John.)

    But there’s one interesting thing in the response. It reads:

    “In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship […] at birth […] by the United States government. […] This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.”

    Thanks to Wayne Abraham for this “straightforward and logical” definition, although he doesn’t say “natural born citizen” at the end: One is a born citizen, if “NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY SAYS OTHERWISE”. We know for a fact that there was a government entity that said otherwise in Obama’s case: The United Kingdom’s Nationality Act rendered him a British citizen at birth, augmented by his US citizenship.

    So by his own definition, Abraham agrees with Leo Donofrio. I like that. 🙂

  67. The very question of Leo’s lawsuit was written about by Yale University some twenty years ago.

    Very interesting and LEO>>>>I HOPE YOU SEE THIS POST! 🙂

    Click to access pryor_note.pdf

  68. Great work Leo! We are all enjoying the history lesson. How ironic it is to see Chester Arthur’s lies, cheating and dishonesty for personal political gain. The similarities to Obama’s lies, cheating, and dishonesty – without regard for our Constitution or We the People is truly astonishing. How low can a person go?

    Thank you for all of your hard work and persistence in this very important matter. I applaud you! You are truly a great American and so many people are so grateful to you!

    While reading the comments here, a thought came to me. Does anyone happen to know whether or not Joe Biden has resigned from the Senate like Obama did recently? If not, perhaps he (Biden) knew that Obama’s eligibility might be challenged and so he didn’t want to give up his Senate seat!

    Continuing to pray for the Supremes decision to take the case!


  69. Tony Stark Says:


    Have you forwarded this discovery to the MSM and the parallels to Obama’s own history? I think it’s important for people to know, including the Supreme Court justices, that a President who knew he wasn’t a natural born citizen by virtue of his father’s British citizenship, had to lie his way about his family’s past to the White House. This will remind people that being born in the US does not automatically confer “natural” citizenship if the child’s father is not a US citizen at the time of birth.

  70. Leo, this may be new info for you….It is a study on the subject or “natural born citizen” and eligibility….This reseach is from about twenty years ago….I hope it helps!!!

    Click to access pryor_note.pdf

  71. Great job on the research, Leo.

    I’m hoping you get some good news on Monday, sir.

    — Jeff


    response to wayne abraham leter. he did not live here 47 yrs and he earned indo citizen ship thru his step father and that is that it was nullified right there. end game dual citizenship and conflicting loyalties. and his real name is barry sotoro. get a grip with reality. dont forget he stopped in indo and renewed his passport so he could travel in pakistan as well. it goes on and on. not to mention other issues, where do i start. wow how nieve or ignorant can we be just to please the wishes of those wanting to cancel out the u.s. constitution and place their groomed for the white house in blisteringly quick fashion and lacking govermental function knowledge puppet in the white house.

  73. Leo, BRAVO, my friend! Amazing job of research and no matter the outcome of this case, this is a very exciting historical development indeed!

    This is a moment of interactive history in the making! You’ve inspired me to tap back into my passion for standing up for whats right and not what is simply politically and socially acceptable to an unassuming and largely uninformed public.

    We need a Constitutional Restorcracy (my term for a political movement to restore Original Intent, pronounced: res-tok-krahsee).

    New London, CT

  74. BerlinBerlin Says:

    [Ed. Note – He could show it, but it wouldn’t effect my law suit. He would still be a British Citizen from descent of his Father.]

    Hi Leo,
    congratulations to the discovery about CHESTER ARTHUR !

    Thank You for teaching me so much about the NBC issue.
    I for my part am sure Obama and some people of his close circle know about it. Hopefully the imitation of Chester’s plan is not going to work.
    More and more people ask themselves what is so difficult about showing Your Birth Certificate when You want to be The POTUS?
    It is ridiculous.

    Good Luck for monday!

  75. Richardvf Says:

    [Ed. Note – We’re not discussing citizenship. Chester Arthur was a Citizen. Obama is a Citizen. Neither were “natural born citizens” eligible to be President under the Constitution. The light starts to go for alot of people when they ask themselves, “What distinction did the Framers make reference to between “Citizens” who could be Senators and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be President. The SCOTUS has never decided this issue and.]

    This is ridiculous. Chester Arthur was born in the United States and was an American citizen at birth. That is all the Constitution requires. It absolutely does not matter that an infant child born in the US may be a dual citizen under the laws of another country. Think about it. A baby is born tomorrow in Los Angeles whose parents are citizens of Mexico living in the US as permanent legal residents. Under Mexican law, the baby is a Mexican citizen. Under US law, the baby is a natural born US citizen. Are you saying that this baby could never be President? Are you saying that any child born in the US in which one or both of his parents is a citizen of another country could never be President? If so, you are a moron.

  76. mtngoat61 Says:


    What you are revealing here as to what you’ve learned is very educational and very noble of you. But you must consider now at this point in your case that you are in a very, very high stakes game now. As a poker player, you do not reveal your “hole cards” to your opponent prior to your going “all in”. I suggest you start holding your research results cards closer to your vest until you have made your case in arguments at a full hearing at SCOTUS. And that day is coming sooner than you think, imo. So keep your powder dry and your cards close to the vest from here on out. JMHO.

    God bless you and keep up the good fight.

    Mountain Publius Goat

  77. Dara Brown Says:

    [Ed, Note – Barack Obama Sr. moved to Kenya and worked in the Government there.]

    Hey, Leo, good work!

    What would have happened if Barry’s dad became a US citizen before Barry was born? I mean, that worries me. What if the dems try to claim that his dad was a US citizen, if they could prove it, would it hurt this case?

  78. Note to Mr. Wayne Araham,

    Apparently, you also feel that when a pregnant woman comes up from Mexico to deliver her baby on American Soil to obtain citizenship for her child, the child would also be (in your opinioni) a natural born citizen.

    Or, another scenario: Let’s just consider a marxist in Russia marrying another Russian marxist, and they decide to raise a “Manchurian candidate,” so after getting pregnant, they hop a plane, land on American soil, register the birth of their baby as a United States Citizen, and then go back to Russia and indoctrinate their child in all the marxist indoctrination—then, at age what, 37 or so, he comes back here, runs for an office, and is able (financed by Russia, of course–and their supporters) to then run and seek out the office of President.

    Natural born citizen by your standards, right?

  79. Leo,
    You are a hero. Thank you for teaching me so much about our Constitution. I am not a lawyer but I love history and the Constitution. I recently saw Justice Scalia speaking to The Federalist Society? on c-span. I learned so much and I discovered that I am an Originalist. He mentioned that he does not believe in the Courts re-writing the Constitution as some judges do. Our Constitution is not a living organism but it is a legal document. He believes in interpreting it as it is written not as some think or feel it should be. Because of you and your love of our Constitution – our nation is in store for a historical moment. You are a modern day David going up against a Goliath of Deceit. God is with you and so are many patriots of this great country. Love and prayers to you!

  80. Tony Stark Says:

    [Ed. Note – I didn’t site the Yale article. It didn’t convince me.]


    Sounds to me that, in the Yale article you cited, the authors concluded that even naturalized citizens should be considered as “natural born” citizens for the purpose of presidential eligibility.


    if his step father did not adopt then his mother became indo in order for him to get the indo citizenship and attend school and that would explain how he was able to attend school and also be able to travel on a indo passport as well. so therfore he was ukc at birth and then he became indo later and has foreign interests to speak. so mom is not a U.S. citizen at this point and dad is not a U.S. citizen so barry is not a U.S. citizen. and mom was not qualified legally to pass U.S. citizen ship on to barry at birth due to legal time constraints at the time on his mother at his birth time which left the ball in his dads court and we know pops was ukc.

  82. carpediem Says:

    First, your work is greatly appreciated, no matter the outcome. My hope, however, is the SCOTUS will hear your case.

    The information on Chester is extremely interesting. It should shoot down any attempts of Obama’s camp to use it as precedence in their favor.

    Another note on Abraham’s letter. (And yes, I’m aware this case doesn’t depend on what is on the BC…). He states:

    “Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.”

    I am so tired of the recent epidemic of inaccurate reporting – most of which could have been corrected with 30 seconds of research. I have lost count of the number of time the HI Dept. of Health has been misquoted by those in the MSM, and now, an Elector. They never stated WHAT the content of the vault BC was – ONLY that it existed and they hold it.

  83. Tony Stark Says:


    Are you saying then that someone who is a citizen of both Mexico and the US at birth (like a kid born in Arizona to illegal immigrants who then moved back to Mexico with the child where he then grew up there) is eligible to become President of the United States? [Ed. snip… no insults please.]

  84. Am I on the span list or something, Leo? My comments are not getting released with others, it seems.

  85. Hi Leo, I truly believe that Obama is using his BC as a red herring to throw us off the trail of his natural born status. It wouldn’t surprise me if he presents the BC with fanfare as a true and legit document. All the while, people are spending time, effort, and resources chasing his BC. He may be a usurper, and he may be a liar, but he is definitely not stupid.

    Thank you for all you have done and continue to do. I truly admire you, and I don’t say that lightly.

  86. BerlinBerlin Says:

    Hi Leo,
    I just came across this quote.

    “Never doubt that a group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only way it ever has.” – Margaret Mead.

  87. [Ed. Note – I didn’t site the Yale article. It didn’t convince me.]

    Me neither. Citations were stretched for meaning, then it threw in the towel and went with the “convenience” of defining “natural” with “naturalized” instead of “Natural Law”. Nice try.

    Blackstone is the answer. It explains Common Law, the foundation for the Constitution, and fits like a puzzle piece. People today must remember that the Constitution was actually written for the “Common Man”. And every American man and woman understood Common Law in 1787.

    Natural-born subject = sole allegiance to the King
    Natural-born citizen = sole allegiance to the U.S.

    Natural-born subject = natural-born father.
    Natural-born citizen = natural-born father.

    Case closed.

  88. [Ed. – it wasn’t a PDF file. It was microfiche. And Historian Greg Dehler deserves the credit. He found it, recorded it, and shared it. He did his job and in the process changed history. Bravo Greg.]

    Wow. After all these years and all it took was hunting down a PDF file. Amazing work. I came across the text of a 2000 Congressional hearing where the topic was “CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT.”. There are arguments from both sides and you might already be familiar with this, but if not, it’s very informative because you have people testifying on the issue from all sides:


    Here’s one argument:
    Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I would have to say that I am opposed to this amendment. This is not about patriotism, because I believe that people that come to our country and are naturalized are among the most patriotic in the world, patriotic Americans. But I do believe that it is very hard for them to not have feelings about their home country, good feelings about the people there. And I believe that as the Presidency has grown, if anything, it has grown to be a more powerful body than it was at the time our forefathers drafted the Constitution. And it is our President who is both the Commander in Chief and who negotiates with foreign countries.

    While it may be possible for some naturalized citizen to be totally fair when dealing with his home country, I am not sure he could ever escape at least the questions of the American people and their suspicions on whether or not he was being fair.

    I think we are still concerned as our forefathers were about our domestic policy and about foreign influence on that policy. And I think you resolve these issues—if there is any doubt, you resolve them in favor of the Constitution, which, as Professor McDonald from the University of Alabama said, you resolve them in favor of the Constitution which has stood the test of time.


    I now wonder if Arthur’s father ever leaned on him when making decisions relating to Britain.

  89. neil9ball Says:

    Leo – Thank you so much.

  90. Leo,
    All can say is it sounds awfully familiar! OK, I’m on my knees in prayer…we are living in strange times! You be strong…you might be our David facing a Goliath of deception. Have faith ….remember who won! Right will be perceived as wrong and wrong will be perceived as right but justice WILL prevail! If not here than in the kingdom ahead! I pray America is given more time, press on my friend!

  91. What an incredibly fascinating trip through history via the Chester Arthur case. No use trying to explain to the Obots what the difference is between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. They won’t entertain any criticism about their boy, so it’s wasted breath. Besides that, everyone knows that all [Obama supporters] are smarter because they don’t wear tinfoil hats. Damn, that’s been our problem all along, those danged tinfoil hats are causing us to seek the truth against our will!!!! (NOT!) 😀

    I was hoping against hope that The Supremes would announce their decision by the end of business on Friday. Oh well, Monday it is.

    If all these lawsuits fail, I’m thinking that Australia might be a good place to land…they already speak English. 😀

  92. MooseKnuckles Says:

    [ Ed. – link dosn’t work]

    This one needs some work. Contains one weak argument from an immigration “expert”:


  93. Did you take down my post? I sent you a link.


  94. It is really so simple to understand the framers intent that my 1st grader could add it up.
    It takes 2 U.S. Citizens of any type to = 1 Natural Born U.S. Citizen,
    So unless Obama was conceived by immaculate conception (and maybe not even then)
    He is not a natural born citizen.

  95. [ed. – SCOTUS majority in Wong Kim Arc says person born in US to two Chinese nationals who are not US citizens is a “Citizen” – court discusses what a “Natural born citizen” is and mentions others cases which have discussed the term “natural born citizen” – court does NOT hold that Wong Kim Arc is a natural born citizen. Since the court could have, if it so chose, to hold that Wong Kim Arc was a nbc, but it didn’t, the holding provides support for the argument that a nbc is somebody not only born in US, but who also is born to parents who are US citizens.]

    Leo, could you please explain the significance of Wong Kim Arc with regard to your case? I read it, but am not sure if I am interpreting it properly.
    Thank you

  96. AngelShepherd Says:

    This guy (Bwana Hussein) is a fraud. He was born at the Coast Provincial General Hospital here in Mombasa, Kenya (Note: not Mombosa). I can tell because his lips are moving! Plse don’t discount Mr. Berg’s arguments. I’ve seen and heard the evidence, including the tape recording of his maternal grandmother stating she was present at his birth, and I’m utterly convinced! Please depose and dispose of him ASAP America.

  97. This is truly interesting to have stumbled onto this document. I am praying that the Justices will decide to hear your case. Thanks for all that you are doing.

  98. Political Season said
    “Bravo, Wayne Abraham. His analysis is much closer to the common sense thinking of the average American on this question of being “natural born”. This historical, constitutional analysis on this issue does real violence to the average person’s understanding and I think the court would be justified in rejecting it on that basis alone. ”

    Mercifully, the court is there for just that reason. The average person is not schooled in the Constitution, and can’t be trusted to interpret it for the rest of us. Again, you are suggesting mob rule. The average person can’t even name three supreme Court Justices, or five items from the Bill of Rights. I see no reason to turn over the future of the Constitution to the average American.

    Bravo, Mr. Donofrio!

  99. [Ed. Note – perfect description of the issue in my case. Well done Kim.]

    I have always believed that Natural Born is you were born on the great soil of America by both parents that are citizens of the US at the time of your birth.—– You can become a citizen by being born in the US, on US soil, by parents that are aliens, but you are not considered, Natural Born if one or both parents are citizens elsewhere.

    As in Obama’s case, his Father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of Obama’s birth and even by Britain Law that citizenship passed down to his son, BHO as then also being a British Citizen. Obama said it himself on his own Website that he was a dual Citizen. It seems so clear to me that the Framers wouldn’t want to have the highest office of the Country, to be mixed with citizenship of any other country. I believe they would have just written into the qualifications: a citizen of the US. That would mean, that anyone could have a child in America from other countries and that child would have allegiance to two Countries, that of their birth and that of their parents birth. Which Country would this child give greater credence to in case of war or anything else that would come about?

    Because the Framers would have considered, his extended family would be from the land of his Father, he very likely would protect the other country and it could jeopardize the US.

    Everything the Framers did was to protect America. God Bless them for that.

    One of the MSM said that when Obama turned the age of 21, it automatically took away his dual citizenship and they then think that made him a citizen then and took away the dual citizenship. They think that then it makes Obama a qualified type of citizen. That is wrong though in what I am understanding, as it is as of birth that Obama would have been considered Natural Born or just Citizen. In order for Obama to be considered, Natural Born, both his Mother and Father would have had to be, both US citizens at the time of his Birth, otherwise he is still just a citizen.

    I truly believe that the Framers distinguished between the two, Natural Born and Naturalized Citizen. Otherwise the Framers would not have distinguished at the time, the Natural Born words. I also believe that they didn’t totally clarify the phrase, words, because it was all so simply understood to them as, Natural Born, naturally born of two citizens of the US, on US soil and then distinguished the other parts of the Government as having to be citizens, without the Born in it. If there was no distinction then they would have just put all the requirements for the whole Government into one, I would think. It would say in order to hold office of any kind, you have to have these qualifications.

    Instead they distinguished between the two, in the area of Citizenship and the qualifications for President then were made as Natural Born so as to keep the Office of President, PURE, allegiance to the US.

  100. [Ed. – At first I considered that might be the case. Why he changed his birth be exactly one year is very strange. But since his father wasn’t naturalized until 14 years after Chester A was born, the one year doesn’t really add up. What the birth change would have doen is throw off potential researchers. Arthur lied about himself, his mother, his father and had all of his papers burned as well… but somehow the naturalization papers survived. We’re looking into all of this and will update the story as we go along.]


    The 1829/1830 birth of Chester could that deception have been perpetrated to cover up the amount of time required for his father to be in the country in order to qualify Chester as “natural born”?

  101. From reading Elector Wayne Abraham’s letter regarding his opinion of whether or not Mr. Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States he concludes “If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are” fails to take into account that two foreign governments have made very public claims that Mr. Obama is a citizen of their countries. Indonesia considered Barry Soertoro, ask Barack Obama, a citizenship on legal papers and the Kenyan government has made claims that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that Mr. Abraham investigation has not researched these foreign claims certainly makes him appear biased in Mr. Obama’s favor.

    And like Chester Arthur, the man known as Barack Obama has told so many lies about his past that it is impossible to separate fact from fiction unless his records are unsealed by a Court of Law. This should have been investigated before his name was ever printed on the ballot. Thank you Mr. Donaofrio, for being a good citizen and pointing out that the Secretary of State really failed in her duty. She could have kept two illegal names off the ballot if she had upheld the Constitution as she swore to do. But just because they are on there doesn’t mean either one should b president.

    [Ed. – three illegal names were on NJ ballots. McCain, Obama and Calero were all not eligible to be President.]

  102. Good job on your research.

    I’m looking up some information to get a thorough examination of the different citizen types. I’m going to provide an easy to follow requirement list for each. It does get confusing with all the different sites people have to go to, to try and piece everything together. Your argument has really got me interested in all of this.

    Also, if anyone wants to have a good laugh, I made a political cartoon concerning Donofrio’s argument on my blog…


  103. Mr. Donofrio,
    Your suit has led me to educate myself about the concept of NBC, and other US historical lessons that are very fascinating. I think that you are correct in your definition of NBC, and it is appalling to me that most people don’t seem to care. I think that the elector’s comments above are the general feeling of the public at large, that because they believe that Natural Born means Native born (born on US soil), then that’s what it means. Personal relativism is no basis for Law. Mr. Abraham even contradicts himself by his phrase “with no government entity challenging it (his US citizen status)”. I know he means the US government, but what about a foreign government? By the Nationalization act of 1948 wouldn’t Britain have challenged his US citizenship by saying he was a British citizen?
    Another question I have is if the writers of the 14th Amendment wrote that “under the jurisdiction of… ” means under sole jurisdiction of the US, why didn’t they explicitly state that in the amendment? I suppose that as Supreme court Justices, they interpret the meaning and historical content behind these phrases, but why is it written so that it must be interpreted instead of explicitly defined?
    I think that the Yale analysis that is referred to here will be the basis of any defense that Obama will make, if he has to. That analysis says that “native born” is the same as “natural born” I find it curious that in defending his citizenship on Fight the Smears, he actually uses the term “Native Born” rather than “Natural Born”. I think it is because he knows that the inferred meaning of Natural Born makes him unqualified, so he is actually trying to redefine the term by inferring that they are the same.
    One of the writers above states that since the average man in the street believes that Natural Born means native born then that’s what the Law should be. since when is the average man in the street smarter than the Framers of the Constitution? Why is it not “adding value” to the rule to be President by comfirming that there is an extra layer of allegiance to be president? He is advocating the mob rule mentality that has destroyed Venezuela.
    I think SCOTUS will be hard pressed to put aside the opportunity to confirm the intent of the term Natural Born. If they don’t, it leaves an opening whereby enemies of the US can penetrate.

  104. prowlland Says:

    During the primaries we comprised at list of the swing state newspaper emails… wish we had all states ,but we don’t… if this will help some of you beautiful patriots here is the link :

  105. Websters Dictionary, 1904

    Natural Selection; in biology, that process in nature by which plants and animals best fitted for the conditions in which they are placed survive, propagate, and spread, while the less fitted die out and disappear; survival of the fittest; the preservation by their descendants of the useful variations arising in animals or plants.

    (This is what I believe the Framers believed that made this distinction of Natural Born and otherwise. The conditions in which they are place survive, propagate and spread, while the less fitted die out and disappear, The survival of the fittest.

    Natural born; Native; not alien

    (Here Obama was not native as his father passed down to him his citizenship of Great Britain. So he would be at birth, alien but born in the US by his mother in Hawaii) That makes him a citizen but not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Alien; from, another
    1. Foreign; not belonging to the same country, land, or government.
    2. Belonging to one that is not a citizen.
    3. Estranged; foreign; not allied; adverse to; as, principles alien from our religion.

    A foreigner; one born in, or belonging to, another country; one who is not a denizen, or entitled to the privileges of a citizen.

    (denizen: 1. A stranger admitted to residence in a foreign country; specifically, in English law, an alien who is made a subject by the king’s letters patent, holding a middle state between an alien and a natural-born subject.)

    3. A stranger.
    In France, a child born of residents who are not citizens is an alien. In the United States and great Britain, children born of RESIDENT ALIENS are looked upon as natural-born citizens, if they remain in these countries; and foreign-born children of citizens are generally considered natural born citizens.

    [Ed. – Not correct. There is no Constitutional provision, no statute and no SCOTUS case law which says that children born of resident aliens are natural born citizens. The statement above is false. ]

    (This is in plural; resident aliens which to me would mean both parents have to be residents of the US)
    (The last sentence though is interesting in that it again says;foreign-born children of citizens(again plural) are genterally considered natural born citizens.

    [Ed. – Again, this is false.]

    What would that say about McCain?)

    1. Dwelling or having an abode in a place for a continuance of time; as, he is now resident in the city.
    2. Fixed; firm.

    (This shows me that Natural Born means: both parents must be citizens of the US by means of nature (born) or by means of residency as in becoming a citizen of the US.

    [Ed. Note – False. Residency of alien parents does not make their child a US citizen. This is precisely whey Wong Kim Arc was not held to be a natural born citizen. Such people are “Citizens”. The reader is misguided. There is no law which supports this idea.]

    That is why Chester Arther lied; his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. Obama’s father was not a citizen of Obama’s time of birth.
    Obama then is not Natural Born and can never be made to be Natural Born.
    The Framers thought this as a stumbling block for those who would aspire to be President and wanted to make sure they had allegiance to America. It should not be a stumbling block for us to understand this.)

  106. Joss Brown Says:

    [Ed. – I am frustrated by it as well. The court documents are at the top of my page. If nothing else, my case illustrates the incredible laziness or fraud of the main stream media. Here we have people making absolutely sick money but the job they are doing is anything but informative. It feels like propaganda when so many get the story wrong in the same exact manner.]

    I apologize for the name calling. I’m simply frustrated that there are so many who equate your writ with the BC issue and other theories, and even if they support yours, they still often return to the other cases with loud “ands” and “buts”.

    Ditto on your arguments about the electors.

  107. I don’t dispute the argument that holding a dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen. But it is an interpretation, the constitution doesn’t say that. Article 2 is pretty vague and dual citizenship in that regard has never been defined by the courts. So, it would take the SCOTUS to interpret Article 2 in that way to make Arthur or Obama ineligible.

    I sadly believe that if SCOTUS does hear this, they will decide that dual citizenship, especially when acquired as a child through birth, does not preclude being a natural born citizen. If anything, they will say that Obama must renounce any other citizenship.

  108. [Ed. – Incorrect. Mr. Obama has become a citizen of the US. His children were born in the US to two parents who are US citizens. They are natural born citizens eligible to be President. Furthermore, I do not believe Obama has dual nationality now, but he did have it at the time of his birth.]


    I am your neighbour (I live in Edison) and big time supporter following all your blogs from the beginning. I wish you win this case, but nevertheless I see a big hole in your argument, which I believe you should address if your case is going to stand. By your logic Obama Jr. is a British subject because this status was passed to him by Obama Sr. Then by the same British law act Obama Jr. has to pass his British citizenship to his daughters and they are also not NBC. Then his two children in turn will pass that British citezenship on their future children and so on.

    As a result whole US population will be discvalified to be the POTUS because everybody born in our beloved country has an immigrant ancestor of some belonget to some foreign power.

    What do you think about that? Where am I wrong?

    Best wishes to you and good luck all of us,


  109. [Ed. – Please save that Hinman thing. We are going to be looking very closely at A. Hinman.] Don’t know if they are related, but please save it.]

    Thank Leo for your comment! You made my day after suffering from “monkey brain all night”. I looked at my Great Aunt Nellie’s political scrap book last night and I was so excited to see that she had the Republican ticket from Chester Arthur’s campaign and the Democratic Ticket (Hancock and English). She too was a political junky I see now. I never really read this scrap book that was passed down to me.

    I noticed that on the Democratic ticket it lists the Electors and a person by the name;
    Beach I. Hinman as one of the Electors. It doesn’t say which State it is from but the Republican ticket is of Nebraska. If you want a picture copy of the two tickets for your scrap book (:>) let me know.

  110. A couple of law degrees and many years of practicing law have brought me into close contact with a lot of politicians. This anecdotal experience has led me to cynically formulate the following as a general rule rather than the exception: a politician cares about only two things — getting elected and staying elected. They will often say or do whatever it takes in furtherance of such goals, as exemplified by the growing number of politicians in my home state who have recently met the same fate that O.J. did on Friday. They are seldom concerned with the truth unless it happens to advance their agenda. It is an ongoing conflict of interest with their constituencies.

    Mr. Donofrio as a lawyer is doing what every lawyer is ethically required to do – zealously represent his client. In his case before the SCOTUS he happens to also be the nominal client, but more importantly he is de facto, and pro bono (apologies to the readers for use of Latin terms), really representing the constitutional democratic republic that we currently enjoy. Regardless of who winds up as the next POTUS, as long as the truth is revealed then Leo has won his case. Knowledge of the truth, after all, has been said to set a person free.

    Many days of following this case via both the written and spoken word (spelled with a “www”) have also led me to another conclusion: constitutional law classes could have actually been enjoyable if Leo had been my professor. To borrow from My Cousin Vinnie, he’s one hell of a lawyer.

    Dude, may the force and the Lord be with you in your epic quest!

  111. Joss Brown Says:

    One question still remains: Why Arthur’s redating of his birth from 1829 to 1830? It’s not vanity for sure, but I might have a theory. It’s not very scientific however, because I use an assumption as a basis for yet another assumption:

    If we assume that the rumors concerning Arthur’s birthdate were manufactured/ordered by himself (or his party) from Hinman—or alternatively: if we assume that Arthur contracted Hinman, because he hoped for these sorts of rumors—, all of it to cover the fact that he was born before his father naturalized, then we could also see the redating of his birth in this light.

    During the time he ran for offices, the rumors about his alleged birth abroad would be enough to obscure that he was not a natural born citizen, no matter what. But Arthur knew that his vita would be studied by future historians, so he wanted to ensure that he was to be regarded as a legitimate and respected President also by the generations to come. That’s why he burned the documents, to reduce the amount of availabe sources, creating a false birthdate as a strategy of confusion. That’s why he ordered the fake birthdate on his tombstone, which is a clear sign that he was concerned with his nachleben, his place in history, and a positive legacy. It was all done for the same reasons: He hoped that future historians would be preoccupied discussing the different birthdates, and would as a result not realize that his father hadn’t been a US citizen at his birth.

    The fake birthdate needed to be very close to the real one (1829 vs. 1830), because otherwise the historians would have looked in family and official documents of the 1840s. There they would have found the naturalization record, which was too great a risk. Therefore the close vicinity.

    He had been a general, and it was a great strategy that worked for a long time.

    Just my 2¢.

  112. Vk…You are wrong. U.S. Citizenship is determined by the Constitution, not common law. One criterion for being a natural born citizen is that BOTH Parents MUST be U.S. citizens when a child is born. One example is President Wilson. His parents emigrated from England. Some say he was not natural born citizen because his MOTHER was not a citizen when he was born. They are wrong. Before Wilson was born, his father became a U.S. citizen. As a result of this by the marriage act Wilson’s wife automatically became a U.S. citizen. So when Wilson was born both his parents were U.S. citizens.

  113. Val –
    There is no whole in his argument. What Leo is arguing is since Obama AT BIRTH was not a “Natural Born” citizen, then he cannot run for POTUS. He is obviously a citizen, but not a natural born citizen at birth.
    Let’s take a hypothetical situation: If Hugo Chaves has a son who moves to America and marries American women who is a natural born citizen. They have a kid in the US who becomes involved in politics and at the age of 35 decides to run for the POTUS and is elected to the office. What are Americans to think of this?
    I don’t know the law, but if the Justices do not hear the case the least they should do is write an opinion as to why. It is a legitimate issue and as an American I think I have the right to know.

  114. [Ed. – That appears to be a reference to a photo of Obama Sr.. I don’t understand your point.]

    Hey Leo,

    Check this link out if you have a second. It’s the University of Hawaii Photographs Collection archive.


    Search the page for Barack and see what it says. The link below is a screen shot just in case the page gets bleached.

  115. [Ed. – Bush v. Gore protects the fundamental voting rights once they are granted by a state. The issue is more to do wth whether the New Jersey Secretary of State allowed fraudulent ballots… becuase if the candidates were not eligible and one votes for them, then later the candidate is disqualified, then the person’s vote is voided. Furthermore, I have a right to be governed by a Constitutionally eligible President not a President who admits he was “governed” by great Britain.

    Moreover, once the Electoral College meets, the Constitution provides for measures if the President should be found to not be qualified for office… these measures provide a way to remove him before taking office. The fact that a procedure exists and is in the Constitution is evidence that the nbc issue can be resolved Constitutionally before the ineligible person takes office. ]


    Great work! Like many others, I hope this case gets heard. The only potential hole that I see is that the SCOTUS may see this as a preemptive suit. I understand that the Constitution states that no one other than a NBC can hold the office of president. However, I am not sure that there is anything constitutionally about a non-NBC running for office. Until the electorate actually votes, have any laws actually been broken? Could this cause hesitation on the part of the courts to actually hear the case at this point in time? Sounds silly, but I was just wondering, being a non-legal type of person.

    Thanks for all that you have done!


  116. [Ed. – Woodrow Wilson’s mother became a “citizen” by the 1855 statute. She wasn’t a natural born citizen. Wilson was born on US soil to parents who were citizens of the US at the time he was born. Therefore he was a nbc.]

    Oops, I should have reread Leo’s article about President’s who had questions about being natural born citizens. Wilson father was born in Ohio. However, the point is that they made an issue about the mother, both not being U.S. Citizen, meaning that Both parents must be U.S. citizens. So if your argument was right, by his father being a U.S. citizen it would not matter what citizenship his mother was, it would have passed through the father. It does not work that way in the United States. Again, citizenship is determined by the Constitution. The following from Leo’s post


    Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
    Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
    “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

    This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US; both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.

    Now for the right example.. Again from Leo’s post


    Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:

    Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

    The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

    Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

    Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
    So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.

  117. What concerns me is not the similarities between Chester and Obama, but the differences. Chester tried to hide the fact that he was born to a British father, Obama has not, but Obama has tried to hide the full disclosure of his BC. This makes me wonder if the whole issue of Andy Martin”s theory could have some truth, that BHO Sr. is not his birth father after all.

    Leo, I do applaud all of your hard work. The constitution does need to be defined by the SC as to what natural born citizen does exactly mean.

  118. Leo – do you EVER sleep? I honestly don’t know how you get so much accomplished. It’s my fervent hope that tomorrow we learn you need to pack your bags for a very important trip to DC. If this isn’t a case for the Supreme Court to hear, then I don’t know what would be!

    Get some rest and know that there are millions of us who will be with you in spirit if/when the Supreme Court does the correct thing for the United States of America.

  119. It is saved in a safe place (Hinman elector on Democrat ticket). You have my email when you would like it.

    Leo I hope and pray so much that the SC will let you argue this case. What a huge history lesson especially for the youth in this country. This is one they can touch and feel and could spur their interest in the history and laws of our Country. It is good timing to offset the dumbing down of our Country’s History in the classroom. Only by addressing this will it stop the bleeding of our country that is happening. I hope the SC don’t just try to put a band aid on it. It needs to be stitched and we all deserve a do over.

  120. Leo – on your Ed. Note to John at 11:08 a.m. you wrote, “Furthermore, I have a right to be governed by a Constitutionally eligible President not a President who admits he was “governed” by great Britain.”

    Which leads to the question – how can ANY court deny these cases for ‘lack of standing’? Doesn’t EVERY citizen of America have that right? Or are we losing that one, too…

  121. truPatriot Says:

    To Leo:

    I’ve been following you from the beginning. I don’t blog often, but have read, and read, and read. You have provided a gift of education that we didn’t receive from any class in school, and provided a renewed interest in our constituation, as well as case law. I cannot from the bottom of my heart thank you enough for standing firm and tall for the people of the United States. You are truly a patriot and hero in my eyes, and a law stud. Wow. What an article!! I could listen and/or read your interviews all day. You have truly won the hearts of many Americans and have a talent that God provided. This is your destiny! My prayers will always be with you, and God speed, sir.

  122. Joss Brown Says:

    @John Nada:

    This is also my observation. Politicians and their supporters throughout the ages have created their own realities, their own legacy, and if necessary they breached the law, while later covering their tracks. Disagreeable elements of vitae have been rewritten—the scholarly term would be “réécriture”. A prominent and very early example is the Roman king Romulus, who died as a tyrant, because he was literally torn to pieces in the Forum by an enraged mob of Senators. Later historiography transfigured him into a benevolent founder, complete with a miraculous disappearance and call of the gods, an ascension and deification, being identified with the god Quirinus. Victors and the guardians of their legacy write their own history, rewrite history, as we can now observe with Obama—and McCain for that matter (cf. S.Res.511, Tribe/Olson etc.)—, and in historical sciences it is always wise to pay close attention to the dissenting opinions that have survived the ages.

  123. What I am having a truly hard time with is… Obama was a constitutional senior law instructor for the Univ. of Chicago.

    He knows all this. And he knows that “natural born citizen” is required.

    I ask, if he is doing this to the United States now…. why?

    What is really going on here?

  124. Joss Brown Says:

    I made an error above (December 7, 2008 at 10:49 am)

    It’s supposed to read: “If we assume that the rumors concerning Arthur’s birthPLACE were manufactured/ordered by himself”


  125. [Ed. – Makes no difference whatsoever whether a country claimed McCain. He was not born on US soil. He was born in Panama and as such he can never be a natural born citizen. His citizenship status was not derived naturally. He is not a 14th Amendment citizen and he’s not natural born. McCain gets his citizenship form a statute and without the statute he wouldn’t even be a citizen. Born on Panama soil. McCain is not a natural born citizen and both he and the Senate did great damage to this nation by saying he was. ]

    Your comment on my 9:31 response

    Ed. – three illegal names
    were on NJ ballots. McCain, Obama and Calero were all not eligible to be President.]

    made me realize that I needed to clarify one point, I left off Senator McCain’s name because no foreign country has claimed him as a citizen (that I know of) and no one has disputed his citizenship in public and that was the reasoning Mr. Abraham gave for continuing to vote for Mr. Obama. Both Obama and Calero have been claimed by other countries as citizens.

    I am just so happy that this case has finally reached the Supreme Court because I had my doubts from the beginning when I realized that this 47 year old politician had less of a paper trail than an elementary school student.

  126. Leo’s recent research is very interesting…however:

    I think the real issue with the phrase “natural born citizen” is what does it even mean. I think Leo is correct on his viewpoint, but others think “natural born citizen” is ONLY related to where a person was born, not where their parents were born or whether their parents were naturalized at the time of the child’s birth. So this new finding may not convince many naysayers who are saying the ONLY controversy with Chester Allan Arthur is where he was born.

    From my reading much of the fuss in 1800’s was if Arthur was born in Canada not whether his father was naturalized at the time of his birth.

    Leo’s case looks like the perfect case for the SC, to finally close the controversy of the phrase “natural born citizen”. The SC should look at this case as a very fulfilling case to discuss, not one to shun due to caving into political pressure (as I fear).

    If the SC simply dismisses Leo’s case with no comment, that would be one of the worst travesties of justice.

  127. Leo,

    Thank you for your dedicated research and legal work.

    I hope the SCOTUS will consider the implications of their actions. If the Court chooses not to consider this case and issue a decision, it will be harmful to this great nation. Too many citizens understand the significance of this issue and the protests would continue to intensify. If the Court chooses not to touch this issue because of potential civil unrest, then that would be a sad reflection on their loyalty to their Constitutional duty.

    I believe that Obama has understood the core of this issue all along and trusts that public ignorance and the MSM will result in the issue being ignored. He has been very deceitful in this matter and as well as many others. It is clear that the Clinton’s understood the issue based on Bill’s statement concerning Obama’s Constitutional qualification during the campaign.

    I hope our beloved Constitution will prevail in this crisis.

  128. Historical Detective Work! Pun intended.

    Obama was a British Citizen by descent at birth. This is admitted to by Obama himself on his own website.

    The irony that Obama is a British Born Citizen and the fact we fought a revolution to overthrow the British, giving birth to the Constitution, shows in itself, that it’s highly unlikely a British Born Citizen can be a US “Natural Born Citizen”. (how can you be both anyway? your Natural or your NOT)

    Wayne Abraham’s OPINION, one which opens up the POTUS position to ANYBODY born on US soil (which is obviously dangerous resulting in all sorts of jurisdictions/allegiances), either ignores altogether, or reduces the fact to mere insignificance that there is a grandfather clause following the use of the term “Natural Born Citizen”.

    A REVOLUTION was fought to be FREE from the BRITISH!

    NEVER, in a million years, did the Framers intend on EVER, having a British Born Citizen become POTUS. There is NOTHING more common sense than that, it almost defeats the purpose of having a Revolution to begin with.

    To suggest otherwise, in MY OPINION, is not only ungratefully disrespectful, but undeserving of the very rights and freedoms that BLOOD WAS SHED FOR in the first place. (again it’s my opinion. What if it was your ancestors who gave their lives? Seems almost mockery.)

    Why would anyone give their life to be free of British rule if they were going to turn around and make any of them rulers again???

    Eyes are being opened thanks to Leo. The numbers are growing daily, rapidly, not just citizens, but descendants of the Revolutionary Heroes themselves, all coming to the realization that the election result of a British Born Citizen is not just WRONG, but highly OFFENSIVE.

    It doesn’t matter how you spin it, The REVOLUTION was not fought and won, only to end up being ruled later by a British Born Citizen, PERIOD. To suggest that ALL the Framers were too dumb to prevent that in the Constitution, after just fighting a war, is beyond ABSURD. An absolute insult to the intelligence of the Framers of such brilliant minds like Benjamin Franklin, who was even at odds with his own son for remaining loyal to the crown. People and Electors alike can read the Constitution and interpret it their own way if they want, but it doesn’t change the fact that we overthrew the British to be FREE, therefore it is clear that the founding fathers were not intent on letting them rule us again.

    A British born citizen cannot be a US “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Chester knew this all too well. He was a fraud, but he wasn’t stupid. Leo’s
    excellent research shedding more light on Chester Arthur’s actions and motives is definitely one for the history books and certainly strengthens his position.

    If SCOTUS denies this case in any way, they better provide a miracle explanation after taking oath to uphold the Constitution, on why a British Born Citizen is going to be allowed to rule this country because this is SERIOUS, more than some might think, people are not going to let this just go away. The country is rapidly becoming aware of the problem, and LEO has delivered the proper suit for SCOTUS to address it and set the record straight.

    Obama specialized in constitutional law, Cosponsored S.RES.511 (a bogus resolution recognizing McCain as a Natural Born Citizen), and sealed his records in multiple countries. Obama knows what he is doing. Some resemblance to Chester, but unlike Chester, he subtly admits his British Born Citizenship in the background. This way he can better CYA in case he gets caught. Still, it would be somewhat patronizing to see a constitutional lawyer play dumb if he’s stopped.

    Personally, I find it utterly appalling that any Elector can vote for a British
    Born Citizen after it took a Revolution to overthrow the British and give birth to our very Constitution. What sense would it make for the founding fathers (or an Elector) to allow British rule after that? It’s shameful that either Obama is doing this knowingly all along (hence sponsoring S.RES.511), or that he is not, but allowing it to continue and fester. The MSM’s unwillingness or incapability to correctly report this to the country is equally disturbing. (incapable? again, patronizing, with every tool at their disposal, and routine practice they seem to have no trouble with the other topics they repeatedly regurgitate.)

    It’s high time people put aside their party and partisanship and step up to the plate as Americans in defense of our founding fathers’ true intentions and our Constitution that formed the greatest country ever. It’s far more important than one presidential term.

    Overwhelmingly, the evidence favors LEO’s position on what truly is a “Natural Born Citizen”…. It makes the most sense, it follows the Revolution the most logically, and it is clearly the SAFEST choice for our country eliminating any potential foreign allegiances at birth. Why are people trying desperately to find any reason, no matter how small, to force it otherwise?

    Thanks Leo for the history lesson while at the same time helping fellow Americans become a part of it.

    The Truth Shall Set You Free
    May GOD’s Will Be Done, GOD BLESS AMERICA, and Good Luck LEO.

  129. stand up and fight Says:

    What if Obamas father happened to be Osama Bin Laden,Tony Blair or Saddam Hussein?Would Obama still be considered a natural born citizen at the time of his birth if Obama was born in Hawaii?I DON’T THINK SO. What if Obamas father was Martin Luther King?Bill Cosby or Collin Powel?Would Obama be considered a natural born citizen at the time of his birth ? YES. That my friends in a nutshell explains NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. PERIOD!!!!!!!!
    Leo am i right or wrong?

  130. Has anyone else read the link that Ryan posted at 4:08am?


    It is a July 2000 Congressional hearing proposing that basically any citizen be allowed to become President (even naturalized immigrants!!!!). Barney Frank leads the charge. What Frank says should scare the H out of anyone……………

    FRANK “It does not seem to me that there ought to be as a general principle any barriers to treating people who choose to come here and become Americans differently than people who were born here. I am also am a great believer in democracy virtually untrammeled.”

    FRANK “the essential premise of this constitutional provision is that there is some reason to distrust the complete patriotism of people who were born elsewhere, and I have not found that to be the case as a general rule.”

    FRANK “I support this for the same reason that I oppose term limits and other restrictions on people’s ability to choose.”

    If I am reading Franks statements right, it reinforces that the distractions and coverup of Bo’s citizenship are consistent with a long running effort undermine the Constitution, this time to force the issue after either McCain or Bo was inaugurated.

    We appear to have in place some scary people in Congress who, essentially want to turn the Office of the President, Commander in Chief, and nominator of the Supreme Court Justices, over to a naturalized immigrant. AND – Barney Frank even suggests removing term limits. That enables a foreign dictator for life.

    Could Hugo Chavez have laid it out any better?

    Leo, that 2000 hearing may have no direct bearing on your case but it certainly sheds some light on how this managed to get through Congress and the DNC.


    so hey – Just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren’t really out to get me.

  131. Other point on how “natural born citizen” must also take the nationality of parents into consideration…

    Just think of this extreme case of only considering where a child was born for determining “natural born citizenship.” What if two terrorists just plop into the US to have their child. According to some, that child could become the US president some day. And yet, clearly one can easily see the conflict of interest and even severe danger to allow this to happen in this and similar cases.

  132. […] Other deniers claim that because Barack Obama was born a British citizen, as a son of a British father, regardless of where Obama himself was born, he cannot be considered a “natural born citizen.” That came as a shocker to me, as I had always considered myself a “natural born citizen,” even though I was born in Maryland of a British father. But, apparently, I am not only NOT a “natural born citizen,” but according to some, I am not even a citizen of the USA, an interesting thing to discover at my age. At least I am in good company. It’s me, President-elect Barack Obama, and President Chester A. Arthur. It must be true as I read it at a BLOG. […]

  133. Andy Maritin theory is a joke & you know that. Obama is making this public as to setting a precedent.



  135. [Ed. – You are a citizen. And according to the Constitution, you could be a Senator or Representative because it only lists “Citizen” as the requirement for those offices. For President, they upped the ante a bit abd required somebody to be a “natural born citizen”. We have alleged that you and Obama would not be eligible to POTUS. The SCOTUS has never decided this issue. Perhaps they will this week. We just don’t know yet.]

    This is a hoot! Where do you get this information that one’s father’s nationality determines that of a child born in the U.S? My father was British when I was born here in the U.S. and I have always been an American citizen. I know I am a verified citizen, as I have been investigated by the U.S. government for various high level security posiitons.

  136. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Words matter ! … Nature’s God Google that please and not just the word God and follow solid sources like Encarta. See how some of our founding fathers were thinking when they used the words “Nature’s God” I have been thinking for years I was Agnostic.
    “nature’s god”
    At Pat Robertson’s Regent’s University–or is it in his office?–hang three portraits to greet the visitor: the Mason and deist George Washington, Pat Robertson himself, and deistic rationalist Thomas Jefferson.

    The Christian Right is forever claiming that our nation was founded on biblical principles to be a Christian nation. That this myth persists in the face of the stark reality that many of the nation’s Founders were not Christians themselves, is testimony to the aggressiveness with which the Christian Right’s leaders have spread falsehoods successfully blinding millions of Americans.

    Pat Robertson, on The 700 Club, December 30, 1981:

    The Constitution of the United States…is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.

    Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986:

    Words Matter…Tex-

  137. Chester Arthur was never elected President.* If he had run for the office in 1880, the scholars at the time may have taken a much closer look at his background. This is an important facet and is very relevant to our predicament today.

    It’s noteworthy that Chester Arthur never made a serious attempt to run for a first complete term (he could have in 1884), although I concede that the reason was more likely that he knew he was dying rather than his concern about not being natural born.

    It’s also of note that there were no major laws enacted with Arthur’s help during his 3½ years in office. In fact, the most significant legislation of the time was the “Rivers and Harbors” bill, a massive pork barrel spending package which Congress PASSED OVER Arthur’s veto. Arthur also successfully vetoed the “Chinese Exclusion” bill, which would have violated a treaty between the U.S. and China. Thus, I’m not sure what negative effects this usurper had on our nation.

    But, we’re not living in the 1880s, and the federal government seems to be a billion times larger now. Obama’s campaign indicated that he is about “CHANGE” – he’s not a Chester Arthur by any means. Therefore and without question, the effects of a usurper today would be catastrophic at best.

    * Arthur was never elected as U.S. President. He assumed the office after the assassination of President Garfield on September 19, 1881, and never made a serious attempt to seek the office directly.

  138. Joss Brown Says:

    Since S.Res.511 has been mentioned again, I have one little addition. The Resolution is of course mere opinion, not legally binding at all. But while discussing the resolution, some very interesting things were said. I quote from page S.2951 [my CAPS].

    Chairman Leahy (to Secretary Chertoff): “[…] You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he [John McCain] is constitutionally eligible to become President?”

    Secretary Chertoff: “My assumption and my understanding is that if YOU ARE BORN OF AMERICAN PARENTS, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”

    Chairman Leahy: “THAT IS MINE, TOO. Thank you.”


    I wonder why nobody answered: Knock-knock—American parents? Plural?—Obama? Hellooooo?

    I wonder, I wonder, I wonder…

  139. I hope readers will read “Why All Lawsuits on Obama Eligibility are Misguided” at http://www.ballot-access.org, top entry as of Sunday morning, Dec. 7.

  140. QuakerDave Says:

    [Ed. Good one 🙂 ]

    Yes, and Rutherford B. Hayes was an alien.

    No, no, a REAL alien, like from Mars and stuff…

  141. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_p…/cis_1753.html

    “The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.”

  142. mtngoat61 Says:

    [Ed. Nobody has contacted me about writing an AC brief.]


    If your case goes to a full court hearing, will you seek “friends of the court” (FOC) filings on your behalf? Without revealing any names, have you already received and offers from attorneys, especially renowed constitiutional attorneys, to file such FOC briefs to aide the merits of your argument to the Justices. Or have they all been in a “cone of silence” too on this whole thing. When you do appear before SCOTUS, I do hope you have some assistance with you at that time. You are brilliant, but in the wide open, rapid fire questioning that SCOTUS cases engage in, two or more brilliant brains are better than one, at that critical juncture in history. They usually only give the attorney 30 minutes or so. Its fast and furious with questions flynig from one justice, then another. JMHO.


  143. NJ Citizen Says:

    historiandude wrote: “I am confused.

    You have now established that Chester Arthur’s father was not a US Citizen when he was born. So… we now know that your previous post designed to explain Arthur’s “lies” as a one year shift to cover up this issue has been rendered both moot and absurd. Arthur was fourteen when his own father naturalized, and no one year shift could disguise that fact.”

    In addition to throwing out a lot of lies about dates, and ages, and entry points upon North American soil, to put people off the trail, consider the following. The period of legal residence appears to have been 5 years within the U.S. before one could become naturalized, so claiming 1830 instead of 1829 might have put Chester Arthur on more solid ground with a “margin of safety” if people “assumed” that his father had not been super-swift in pursuing the necessary protocol. The fact that the family moved around a lot, and this kind of paperwork was often lodged in county courthouses, might have found any investigators (if there were any) looking all around Vermont when the fact was that the naturalization was so delayed, it had occurred in New York, where the family re-located when Chester Arthur was a teen. The State of Colorado puts out a decent “primer” on what the Naturalization laws have been since the first Act in 1790, and it is linked below as reading for the layman


    Carlyle wrote that the election of Chester Arthur didn’t cause anything calamitous to happen in the U.S. as a consequence of his Presidency. To that “je ne sais quois” attitude, which seems to ask “what’s the flap about”, my response would be (in a heavy Jersey accent): “Yo, the dude ran for VEEP and one of his fanatical supporters assassinated the Pres in the first year they were in office. If a Presidential assassination isn’t ‘calamitous’ in the life of a nation, then what’s the threshold for defining it?” J/k … sort of.

  144. I see what you mean about Melissa’s post now. I thought it was for Barack Obama Jr. I was thinking that he didn’t attend Hawaiin college.

  145. Tony Stark Says:

    Here’s a thought for those who think being born in the US is sufficient to become a natural born citizen. If Hugo Chavez (or any dictator) was born in the US while his parents were vacationing here, then according to them, he is eligible to be President of the US since, according to their line of thinking, he is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth here if he decided to move to the US and run for office after tiring of running Venezuela. The Founding Fathers clearly anticipated this nightmare scenario by insisting that a candidate have loyalty to no other nation at birth but the US.

  146. […] Other deniers claim that because Barack Obama was born a British citizen, as a son of a British father, regardless of where Obama himself was born, he cannot be considered a “natural born citizen.” That came as a shocker to me, as I had always considered myself a “natural born citizen,” even though I was born in Maryland of a British father. But, apparently, I am not only NOT a “natural born citizen,” but according to some, I am not even a citizen of the USA, an interesting thing to discover at my age. At least I am in good company. It’s me, President-elect Barack Obama, and President Chester A. Arthur. It must be true as I read it at a BLOG. […]

  147. Here’s my definition of natural born citizen: If your condition at birth leaves you with a choice at some other later time in life as to which citizenship you might select, then you are not a natural born citizen.

    Two US citizen parents, plus born on US soil
    Two US citizen parents, plus born on foreign soil while on foreign soil on behalf of the US Government.

    Any other situation besides the two above give you a choice in life as to what citizenship you may choose. To me, that’s not naturally born a citizen.

  148. Richard, top entry but, you are wrong.

  149. Joss Brown, for the same reason BO’s staunchest defenders who cite the “Certification of Live Birth” as proof he is a natural born citizen fail to note on the site, BO does not say this proves he is “natural” born but only “native” born.

  150. […] Uncategorized proudpuma 2:16 pm A great deal of interest has been generated over the possible female appointees to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, but we forget that we could also make gains with Obama’s upcoming vacant Senate seat (likely to be vacant regardless of the Natural Born Citizen outcome). […]

  151. dcomus Said:

    “I think the real issue with the phrase “natural born citizen” is what does it even mean.”

    You have to look at Blackstone’s common law to understand the root of the phrase. Let’s look at “natural-born” first:

    “Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection;”


    “But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception…”

    Natural-born means allegiance of the dominion of the father. In this case, the dominion is the United States. It follows natural law, a common law concept.


    “Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; ”

    This means no dual allegiance, i.e. citizenship, at birth. More importantly, however, is that allegiance as a citizen can be broken via statute, but allegiance as a subject (in this case British subject) cannot. This law has changed for the U.K., but the allegiance still applies. The U.S. has claimed allegiance, but it can be broken through renouncement. This law has never changed.

    So the “born” part is defined as being “born within the dominion” of the United States. And at the signing of the Constitution, the dominion of the U.S. was only comprised of states. It did not include territories.


    “Natural Born Citizen” back in 1787 meant to be born on the soil within the borders of the 13 states (or however many states were added) to a father who was a U.S. citizen.

    This means McCain and Obama are Citizens by statute, but NOT Natural Born Citizens by birth. And if you really look at all presidents who were born after the signing of the Constitution, with the exception of Chester the Liar, all were Natural Born Citizens by this rule.

  152. Great YouTube Video discussing the Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document – by Ed Vieira

    I Agree with the former…that it should be viewed in its ‘Original Intent’ NOT as a living document…that’s what AMENDMENTS are for!

  153. Just Saying Says:

    I wish the IRS had been established under Chester Arthur. Then, we’d have a good cause that it wasn’t legit. Wonder what was established under his administration that we still have and wish we didn’t…

    Ripe for challenge?

  154. mtngoat61 Says:

    Leo and others here,

    Yes, Chester Arthur was never “elected” as the President. That is a key point. Can you imagine this scenario? In the future, something tragically happens to a duly elected and qualified sitting U.S. President and Vice-President. Say Air Force One crashes head on into Air Force Two. 🙂 But just for arguments sake say both the Pres and VP are taken out, and at that future time let’s all have the scenario that the Speaker of the House is a “naturalized” citizen of the U.S. Under our constitution would he/she be sworn in as our acting President until new elections. In that scenario we would also have a President who is not constitutional qualified for the office per the “natural born” clause, and yet they are serving in that office because they got there with out being elected by the people or the Electoral College. Chester Arthur got to be sworn in as our President by lying and a set of circumstances that lined up in his favor. But he was not elected as President and put there by the Electoral College. Thus, we can still say that no President of the USA has ever been elected to that office who was not a “natural born” citizen of the USA.


    P.S. My scenario above has the makings of a good book plot. 🙂

  155. GratefulForLeo Says:

    Thank you, your sister, and Greg Dehler for this amazing discovery about Chester A. Arthur. I have to wonder whether the Civil Service Act is now void. Chester Arthur’s biggest achievement as President was signing the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act into law. If he wasn’t legitimately President then all bills which he signed into law would also be illegitimate.
    I also thank you from the depths of my heart for your courage and tenacity in exposing how far this country has drifted away from our binding document. The Supreme Court must address the issues you and others have raised, or inevitably permit the destruction of their own power as well as our constitutional republic.

  156. Yes McCain was born to two U.S. Citizens, but McCain was born in Panama… on foreign soil, so he is not a natural born citizen. He was made a citizen by statue.

  157. truthseeker Says:

    To Leo and the other members of this community:

    Thanks for your many insights. Leo I do not know if you read World History, I happen to teach it and in Ancient Greece for a person to even be a member of a Greek City State (if you will “Natural Born”) BOTH PARENTS and the CHILD had to be born in that particular Greek city-state (polis). I am wondering if that is where prior governments (including ours) came up with this idea of Natural Born.

  158. “I hope readers will read “Why All Lawsuits on Obama Eligibility are Misguided” at http://www.ballot-access.org, top entry as of Sunday morning, Dec. 7.”

    And that argument is clearly flawed. Electors must follow Constitutional Law like everyone else.

    Electors are also voting via proxy by U.S. Citizens. Electors REPRESENT the votes of the people. Without state primaries (i.e. you me and the Joe down the street), states would be unable to determine which group of electors to send to D.C. to vote for President on December 15. Therefore, if the primaries at the state level were affected by ineligibility (i.e. ILLEGAL votes) during the primaries, electors would also be sent to vote in Washington illegally. At this point elector eligibility would be in question. The selection criteria for these electors are based on the popular vote at the state level.

    It’s really amazing how little people (i.e. the author of the article) in this country understand about the electoral process.

  159. Tony Stark Says:

    Richard Winger

    Leo’s suit seeks to show that the current system of letting the political parties do the Secretaries of States’ job of certifying the eligibility of the candidates for POTUS is seriously broken. The second desired effect will be to force Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen and provide all the documents about his past that he’s been hiding. The electors are certainly free to vote for anyone they wish, but armed with the knowledge and a SCOTUS decision that Obama isn’t eligible will help clarify their thinking and guide them in their vote. Likewise, members of Congress will have to certify the results with this information in mind. If it is proven that Obama isn’t eligible, then any vote for him by both the Electoral College and the Congress despite knowing this is treason to the Constitution.

  160. To Richard Winger,

    In regards to that article, in order to qualify a parties candidate, defined such as the Democratic Party, to place a candidate on the ballot in states, such as California, they must follow these rules to put their candidate on the ballot:

    A political organization shall be qualified as soon as it:
    (a) Files proof of organization with the Secretary of State;
    (b) Meets to name a candidate to the general election ballot; and
    (c) Certifies a candidate to the general election ballot.

    Now from the Democratic Party on what it takes to be certified to be a candidate:


    February 5, 2008
    Presidential Primary Election


    The candidate must be:

    A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
    B. At least 35 years of age, and
    C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)


    There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a
    presidential candidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary Election:

    • by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
    • by circulating nomination petitions.

    That shoots that article out of the water. The States have rules in order to put candidates on each states ballots and at least in California, each party must have a certified candidate. That means that once again:
    A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
    B. At least 35 years of age, and
    C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)

    Notice the Democratic party says also that their candidate must also be:

    I think they didn’t read their own rules of what it takes to certify a candidate.

  161. [Ed. And exactly where in my misguided bunk did you see me ever say that Chester Arthur wasn’t a US “citizen”?]

    YOUR ARTICLE IS MISGUIDED BUNK designed to fool people who don’t know much constitutional law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land – that means that any and all statutes and court decisions yield to its terms – and it resolves the issue of Chester Arthur. On July 28, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. It provides, in part, that “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.” That sentence had the legal effect of eliminating all doubts about the citizenship of former American-born slaves and Indians from the time of their birth. No court has ever held that the Fourteenth Amendment created two classes of citizenship. It was designed to provide the maximum benefits of citizenship to everyone ever born in this country. It had the effect of assuring that a man born in Vermont in 1829 was considered to have been born a US citizen and was fully qualified to become President. Arthur was not naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment. His citizenship from birth established as a matter of supreme legislation. Congress may extend citizenship to other classes of people born outside the US, but it cannot take away what the Constitution grants. Those who are in the other classes of citizens described by statute are citizens at birth and they do not acquire it only when they divest themselves of another citizenship. Finally, despite the hopes of one of the commenters that the Chief Justice might save the day by refusing to take part in an inauguration, his presence is unnecessary to inaugurate. Teddy Roosevelt became ther youngest president to hold the office when he was on a fishing trip and a Justice of the Peace administered the oath. (Kennedy was the youngest to be elected, but he was not the youngest to hold the office.) Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated by a female federal judge in Dallas. Your emotions about Obama has seriously affected your ability to objectively come to obvious legal conclusions.

  162. Someone may have already posted this, if so I didn’t see it.

    Perhaps he lied about his father’s age because at that time you had to have permanent residency here for 5 years before being naturalized. If the earliest he could have come here was 26 years old and Chester was born when he was 33, that’s only two years give or take that he could have been naturalized. Saying he was 40, had his father here for up to 14 years.

  163. [Ed. Sir, this is precisely why they included the grandfather clause. perhaps you’ve only been reading the mainstream media, but the actual law of the land says :

    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;

    You see what they wrote? They were not natural born citizens. So, in order to allow them to be President, they wrote “or Citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”. They recognized that they themselves were not natural born citizens.]

    ONE MORE POINT – Reading further into the sillier of the comments posted above, there is a pile of hogwash about the supposed intent of the founders to bar anyone who had been a British subject from the presidency. What was the citizenship of Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe and even Andrew Jackson before the formation of the United States. No one attending the constitutional convention or ratifying it in the states would have imagined in their wildest dreams that the “natural born citizen” requirement would exclude everyone who was not at the moment of birth recognized as a citizen of the USA and who had never held another citizenship. That recently-concocted and tortured meaning would have deprived us of a President for at least 35 years after we became a nation. Each of our early Presidents, born before Independence, was considered by everyone concerned to be a natural born citizen just because they were born in what later became the USA. And if you have any documents establising that Washington and Adams and Jefferson ever had to formally renounce British citizenship to become a US Citizen, I’d love to see the evidence. This thread is full of people willing to through all reason and common sense out the window in order to reah the conclusion they desire.

  164. Also Richard Winger, you should maybe let everyone know that, that site is your own blog and that you are advertising it on this site instead of giving your opi on this discussion blog for all to see.

  165. Plains Radio Listener Says:


    Your research is amazing!

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is defined in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 book “The Law of Nations” (chapter XIX) as a person born in a country of parents who are citizens.

    A visitor to Plains Radio forum has a photocopy of the relevant page posted here, as well as John Jay’s letter to George Washington.


  166. Good Job, Leo!

    This is just astoninshing! I can’t beleive the MSM is ignoring this story. I just sent FOX a butt-chewing email and I may send CNN, NBC one as well.
    (I won’t waste my energy on MSNBC or CBS)

    Who cares about OJ Simpson? Leo Donofrio is the most important guy in the USA this week!

  167. Free America Says:

    Leo, saw some guy arguing that “We The People” overrule the Constitution. 60+ million voted for BHO so that means the Constitution cannot override the popular vote. Here’s what the poster said, and was just curious about your position on this:

    “WE THE PEOPLE, collectively have a higher legal and legislative authority than the Constitution, as provided for us within the Constitution.

    It doesn’t happen very often, because of the possibility of anarchy and mob rule, but WE THE PEOPLE can and have overruled the Constitution on occasion. Our sovereign powers rule supremely over the U.S. and over the Constitution.

    That is what makes the U.S. truly free, WE THE PEOPLE are the E.Pluribus Unum sovereignty over all. “

  168. MooseKnuckles Says:


    I know you like to stick to those issues germane to your case, but I can’ help be notice some recent occurrences that would shake the core of our founding fathers.

    For reasons you have ironed out, I truly believe the framers of the constitution apply the word “natural” to the maternal/paternal characteristics of a candidate at the time and location of birth.

    Place, time and parents have been known to have a significant impression on individual identity, allegiance and overall sense of being; and this is, very much, true today. By requiring a citizen to be naturally born to American citizens, the framers intended to add a generational gap from any potential foreign loyalty. This much you have implied and I don’t think the framers would disagree.

    The evidence of such loyalty cannot be ignored and as it has been demonstrated by Obama and Kenya. Of all nations that went through elections in 2006, why was it Kenya that Obama felt the need to visit? Of all nations that celebrated in the aftermath of our presidential election, why was it Kenya that seems to hold the esteem honor and take, in some part, ownership of the Office of President of the U.S.? Did John F. Kennedy trot over to Ireland as a U.S senator and actively campaign in the elections of that country? Did Ireland, in some major part, take ownership of the Office of President? Could it be that the generational gap had allowed for enough time for John F. Kennedy to born and reared with an impression of individual identity, allegiance and overall sense of being of a pure American Citizen?

    I feel we have opened the door for Kenya to assume something that shouldn’t be there and for Obama to be perceived as holding even an infinitesimal amount of loyalty to a nation other than America.

    I know this gets of the facts you so love to discuss, but I believe the intent of the framers of the Constitution should be deliberated as well as any current evidence of their proposals.

  169. M-A-B Says:

    December 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    “Chester Arthur was never elected President.* If he had run for the office in 1880, the scholars at the time may have taken a much closer look at his background. This is an important facet and is very relevant to our predicament today.”



    It’s true that Arthur was never elected as President & only assumed the office of POTUS after Garfield was assassinated. However, the truth remains that Arthur WAS ELECTED as Vice President under Garfield. This would have been illegal as well since you have to be a “natural born citizen” to serve as either President or Vice President. In other words, the same natural born requirement applies to both offices. Therefore, scholars should have been looking into it regardless.

  170. Maybe a simple analogy is in order here.

    Let’s say, hypothetically, parents from a third world country, it does not matter where, come to the US to deliver a child in a hospital in NY. It happens almost everyday. We do have some of the best health care in the world.

    Nonetheless, the child is born here and whisked back to the parents native country. The child in this case is an American citizen, but not, based on lineage a natural born citizen. Even if the mother happens to be a citizen, and leaves the country with husband and child, the child is still a citizen, but cannot become or claim natural born citizen status. The child until age 21 can in some countries assume duel citizenship but at 21 must declare where his citizenship lies. The child can declare American citizenship but can not ever be considered natural born.

    To make the case understandable, Mexican immigrants that carry green cards have a child in this country, albeit the child is automatically a citizen, he or she cannot claim natural born status, the child may not run for the Office of POTUS. There would be no restrictions on running for lessor offices. Many highly qualified Naturalized citizens have. There in is the distinction, Naturalized is not the same as natural born.

    A few years ago a Saudi Prince brought one of his many wives to the US to deliver a child. Although the child is technically a citizen of the US, the child is not a natural born citizen and will not be eligible to run for the highest office in the land. The constitution foresaw this possibility, therefore the natural born citizen clause became the law of the land.

    The birth certificate does not matter.

    Leo, you are truly a Patriot and may God bless you and yours for the work you have done here. No matter what, your argument has merit.

  171. bob strauss Says:

    Richard , I read the article you recommended. I see no way you can have the electors or anyone else legally elect any person except ” A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” any other person would be a usurper according to the constitution.

  172. bob strauss Says:

    Richard, let me add. Obama, according to your thinking, can become president ,elected by the electors , and allowed to stay as president by a democratic congress, but he still would be a usurper because he doesn’t meet the qualification of being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. ” No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” is allowed by law to hold that position. Anyone else is illegal, a USURPER. You will have your president but he can’t legally take the oath of office with out violating the constitution he swears to uphold.

  173. Leo, God bless you for your heroic battle vs Obama. I hope and pray that SCOTUS take your case Monday Dec. 8 (Catholic feast day Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary). Today, Dec. 7, the Jap attack at Pearl Harbor, the beginning of WWII for America, my prayer is that it will be the beginning of a war to preserve the Constitution in the SCOTUS and preserve America from those who would undermine the foundations upon which it was established. My prayers are with you and SCOTUS to take the case in the interest of the kTruth and the people of the USA. True, you are David facing down Goliath–who was stoned to death!

  174. Free America Says:

    Leo, found another interesting blog entry that may help if you get a chance to present your case.

    “The 20th Amendment says, ‘if the President elect shall have failed to qualify’. See, the burden is placed on the President elect to qualify, not on others to disqualify him/her.”

  175. AmericanPatriot Says:

    [Ed. Arthur would have been a dual citizen at birth. His father could have moved the family back to Great Britain at any time and Chester was a Citizen. That’s the problem with dual citizen status. It causes problems.]

    The article makes the following conclusion:

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

    I simply cannot determine on what basis you are making this sweeping conclusion. Nowhere in the Constitution or its Amendments or Statutes is the issue of dual citizenship ever discussed. What is your basis in law or case history that would lead you to draw the conclusion that a person BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL but who would ALSO BE A BRITISH SUBJECT BY VIRTUE OF HIS FATHER’S STATUS AS A BRITISH SUBJECT is any less a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the US at the time of his or her birth?

    [Ed. Let me turn it around on you. Show me the law which has the words “natural born citizen” which you rely on for your conclusion.]

    There are no relevant cases at the US Supreme Court which have ever dealt directly with this issue that I can find.

    The issue with Chester Arthur appears to be resolved that he was indeed born in the State of Vermont and was thus born on US soil. The logical conclusion would then follow that he is indeed a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    About the only exception to anyone born on US SOIL that would not be considered a natural born citizen is a case where the parent(s) were not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Specifically, that would mean cases whether the parent(s) were FOREIGN DIPLOMATS with immunity from US jurisdiction while they were in the US (and other related exceptions). That interpretation, however, does not derive from the Constitution but from statements of intent on the 14th Amendment and various statutes related to citizenship.

    The real problem with making the argument that someone born on US soil is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by reason of the father being a British subject and thereby passing that status along to the child is that there simply does not appear to be any law, statute, or case opinion to support such a conclusion. On what do you base you opinion that contradicts this view? Simply bringing up a “dual allegiance” argument does not invalidate the fact that any person (with the very narrow diplomatic parentage exception stated above) born on US soil is a NATURAL BORN US CITZEN.

    Since no legal challenge to Chester Arthur was made based on the argument that he was not a natural born citizen – even though he was born in Vermont on US soil – on the basis of his father being a British subject at the time of his birth, I don’t see how this “new finding” has any relevance whatsoever to the current case at hand with Barack Hussein Obama II. There is also another issue of law related to Chester Arthur. Specifically, what British law at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth conveyed citizens to children born of British fathers? The specific law citied as doing this in BHO’s case is the British Nationality Act 1948, which of course, was not in effect at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth.

    In the case of Barack Hussein Obama II, it seems very strange to me that the Donofrio suit essentially stipulates that BHO was born in Hawaii. That is a key issue of fact that is still open to question in this matter, and it would seem to me that if in fact BHO was born in Hawaii that he would be deemed to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in the US. The lack of solid evidence such as a full detailed certified copy of a 1961 “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” (versus the short form 2007-issued “Certification of Live Birth”) is the most key element which has brought this matter into such a current level of public scrutiny.

    BHO claims in his 1995 book “Dreams From My Father” to have had at that time in his possession HIS ORIGINAL ACTUAL “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” – and he has never since stated it was lost, destroyed, or otherwise not in his possession. If it is in his possession at this time, the big question is why he hasn’t released a copy of it. This is the issue which puzzles and baffles most of us investigating this matter.

    Some have said that the State of Hawaii won’t under any circumstances release a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth, but only releases the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” and therefore all the evidence that can be presented on his birth has been presented. I don’t know if that is the case with the State of Hawaii. Does anyone know if the State of Hawaii will actually release a certified copy of the original “vault copy” of a birth certificate? Again, however, if BHO has his actual original birth certificate, that would be the “best evidence” and that is the precise document he should produce voluntarily – or should be required to produce.

  176. Is the Supreme Court Looking at the 14th Amendment?


    Last night I was looking at the 39th Congress on the day the 14th amendment was passed.

    I went back to look at it again today and Can not find it anywhere. Last night I only looked at the text of that day and not actually the paper they have from that day.

    I am looking for when Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois stated; “The provision is that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘Subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’ … Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

  177. prowlland Says:


    woooooooo hooooooooo looky at this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and
    my understanding is that if you are born of
    American parent…..S…<——— (see the s), you are naturally a natural-
    born American citizen.
    Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too.
    Thank you.

  178. Don’t really know where to put this entry, Leo, but stick it wherever you like.

    I corrected the record at the over-zealous Comedy Central report regarding the people that did wind up going to the Supreme Court on the 5th despite last minute notice and a desire from Mr. Donofrio not to cause a commotion there.

    While I think it was highly admirable that a group did show up to represent this issue, it by no means represented the millions that have taken a stand next to Leo Donofrio’s case and I think that needed correction, so this was posted on Comedy Central’s site today:


  179. Great work, Leo. This is all fascinating and mind boggling.

    -And, I wish people would stop calling this a “Constitutional crisis” when in actuality it is a Constitutional CRIME. <–Is it not? I mean, since our Constitution is the highest law of the USA?

    One thing I know in my heart of hearts after studying all of this is that Obama will never, ever be my president and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

  180. split loyalties

    They say a picture says a thousand words


    Please go to www,theobsmafile.com\obamaseducation
    ( I don’ think I wrote the link right but it is under education)

    There is a picture taken at Obama’s school In Hawaii thought to have been written by him in wet concrete in the 1970’s

    It reads. “King Obama”

    Doesn’t that say it all? American children want to me President!

    Please post the picture if you can

  181. Great job Leo,

    S.Ct. cases of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 and Perkins v. Elg in 1939 came AFTER Chester Arthur as a foreign usurper was the 21st president of the USA.

    So, you are dead on Leo. S.Ct. is not bound by what Arthur did from 1881 to 1885 as a precedent because the S.Ct. clarified in U.S. v. Wong Ki Ark (1898) and in Perkins v. Elg (1939) what is a natural born citizen and the example of what one is.

    Good job, you are preparing for the defenses argument.

  182. Leo,
    I hope from the bottom of my heart that SCOTUS will hear your case. I, however, am not at all optimistic it would. Justices will not hear your case for two reasons, the legal and the practical aspects of your claim.
    With respect to legal aspect of your claim: 1) you are basing your claim on Fact Check.org statement on Obama’s website. Obama can argue Fact Check.org does not speak for him and he has not authorized them to that effect. I believe you needed to submit documentation that showed Obama Sr. was not US national, e.g., a copy of his student visa in 1961. 2) “Natural Born Citizen” term is abstract. I understand it has not been litigated in the past, and there is not any case law to support your interpretation of the term. I like a few million Americans support your interpretation but that amounts to nothing in court.
    With respect to practical aspect of your case: I strongly believe Justices are cognizant of ramification of staying votes of 124 million registered voters. SCOTUS was permanently stained interfering with National election and State related matter in Bush v. Gore. They will dismiss your case. They are sharp legal minds and they will find a way to explain it away why it is not their business to stay the election process. I find this very unfortunate nevertheless that is how it is going to be,
    Your research and findings regarding Chester Arthur will also be used by supporters of Obama including MSM that our Republic survived deviation from your interpretation of Natural Born Citizen and will survive this time too.
    If you and others have filed your lawsuits last January or February, American people would have been on your side and neither McCain nor Obama would have been nominated by their parties. I am afraid this late in the election process your effort and the effort of other litigants are too late and too little. I, however, thank you for being a brave American.

  183. Leo, maybe you’ve addressed this query in a previous post – if this be the case kindly refer to the “posting”.

    My question: Do you have any idea as to the reason that most Conservative talk show hosts haven’t mentioned anything about either yours or “Berg’s cases? Maybe some have this past week if so would you kindly “clue me in” as to which ones and if they have presented the cases accurately!!. I’ve had various people tell me that they haven’t heard a word of either case – and I think that then they are not ready to accept what is being presented at your site and others as well. – I would imagine that due to this great lack of “coverage” or at best “very Limited” (as I have heard that a few that at least a couple of Conservative talk show hosts have brought the subject up) but almost nil – except this past week – coverage of these cases by TV and radio would count towards why there were apparently no more than around 2 dozen individuals on the steps of the US Supreme Court house on this past Fri. Dec. 5th. Would appreciate your sharing of your thoughts on this very important Concern of mine and I’m sure many others would appreciate it also.

    If my acceessment of the situation is “right on target” I can imagine that this will only be another source of “anger/disappointment” among Americans – not good so good news – is it?

    Looking forward to your kind comments on the
    matter at hand

    Sincerely Yours,

  184. Someone posted this link:


    On that link, there was a link for this article ”The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?” but the link didn’t work.

    However I found an archive of that site which is very informative:


    PS: If you guys need to go on a website that doesn’t exist anymore, you can check http://www.archive.org, enter the website url and you’ll have its archive.

  185. Ladyhawke Says:


    It seems that Canada is reporting the story accurately:


    You Rock!

  186. [Ed. Nice find. Wild.]

    Has anyone considered that Chester Arthur appointed Horace Gray to the SCOTUS? Gray was the author of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark. How ironic is that?

  187. Joss Brown’s (post above)

    Chairman Leahy and Secretary Chertoff seem to know full well that it takes TWO U.S. citizen parent(s) to be a “Natural Born Citizen”

    Quite an interesting quote you have shown us.

  188. CommonSense Says:

    [Ed. My suit doesn’t say that. I argue that a natural born citizen is somebody born in the US and BOTH parents are citizens, not just one.]

    “His mother Malvina was born in Vermont”

    “His mother Malvina was born in Vermont” – I just love how, back then, nobody cared who the mother was. All that mattered was who the father was.

    I’m sure there are many conservatives who would love to go back to these times when women did not count, so that they could say that Obama’s father was not a US Citizen. too bad in our modern day society, women do count and Chester Arthur would have counted as well, since his mother was a US citizen. It is unfortunate that we treated women like second-class beings.

  189. Talk about obscuring genealogy, the McCann/McCain fmaily has done a lot of that too. according to don Nicoloff, there is a “fictional biography” of the McCain family and admiralty and another one that is connected tot he British royalty. in fact, rather interestingly John McCain spoke about his ties to British royalty.
    Now the McCain admirals I and II were both academically unremarkable, so, Nicoloff suggests, a British plant by the name of John McCain appeared and was given some cover by presidents Buchanan and Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was the nephew of confederate admiral and British agent James Bulloch and was also Teddy’s mentor. Teddy of course came to power because of the assassination of McKinley who was, according to LarouchePac, assassinated by the British oligarchy.
    In fact, rather oddly, McCain said he was a Republican in the “mold of Teddy Roosevelt.”
    this is a short blog on the subject http://starmaker.today.com/
    So is it possible that we had truly two British usurpers running?
    Another major difference,although it can be debated is that there appear to be more radical influences around obama. But possibly this is just a deception again from seeing the real British agenda.

  190. Leo, I’m unsure if you’ll be able to “reply” to my previous “query” posted at 6:10 pm this date. Due to “time “, energy” etc. constraits!!


    IF ANYONE ELSE READING THESE “POSTINGS” could answer my “query” as given previous to this one – I’d appreciate it very much!!


  191. [Ed. I don’t understand the comment. Please clarify.]

    This happened well before the 14th amendment and well before women (his mother was a US Citizen) were counted as real people. It has no significance to present-day, when we have equal rights, etc.

  192. [Ed. Hey Ward. The 14th Amendment only confers citizenship, not Natural Born Citizenship. The Constitution uses the terms for different things.]

    Might a ‘natural born Brit’ student of American History interject? I don’t think the ‘Arthur Fraud’ theory will hold up. The 14th Amendment to the US constitution, adopted in 1868, defines as citizens ‘all persons born OR (my emphasis) naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. On that definition Arthur always was a citizen of the US from birth, regardless of his parentage, assuming he was actually born in Vermont. He was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States all his life in a way that the first seven Presidents at least were not. All of them were natural born British subjects!

  193. John Nada Says:

    For what it’s worth, it helps my understanding of the analysis of the “born” part of the COTUS’ “natural born citizen” requirement by thinking of an analogy in real property law.

    When an interest in real property is transferred via a “general warranty deed” there are certain warranties of title made by the grantor to the grantee. One type of these warranties can be “breached”, or broken, after the transfer, but other warranties can be breached, if ever, only at the time of the transfer.

    In other words, if a “property law” snapshot could be taken at the time of the transfer it would forever memorialize whether this second type of warranty was breached, and if the photograph doesn’t show a breach then such a warranty could never be breached by the grantor.

    (The other type of warranty could be chronicled by a never-ending videotape which begins at the time of transfer. Breach by the grantor could occur a minute, a day, a year, etc. after the time of transfer.)

    Mr. Donofrio’s analysis of “natural born citizen” could be treated the same way. If you take a “constitution” snapshot of a person at the instant of the person’s birth, then the person either appears in the photograph as a “natural born citizen” then and forever after, or the person is not and can never be one.

    The person can become a citizen after the photograph was taken, i.e., appearing in later video footage as a citizen. However, this type of citizenship is not “natural born.”

  194. Obama claims to be a citizen. His certification of birth online has been found to be cut and pasted….IE a makeover. How can I as an American believe Obama if his own website produces a certification of birth when put into a hex editor reveals it was modified. Who is obama? He says he was a dual citizen at birth on his website. Obama does not claim to be natural born citizen anywhere that I know of. This is because he knows he is not. He says he is a Constitutional professor. It wouldn’t take a professor to see what Obama admits on his own website. He reveals he is a dual citizen. He knows a dual citizen at birth cannot be president. Why would he reveal this as a Constitutional lawyer?

  195. Arthur was, in fact, born in Vermont. He was, thus a “natural born citizen.” His father’s nationality is irrelevant under US law.

    [Ed. What US law? There is no US law, statute or Constituional provision which states what you claim, nor is there any SCOTUS case law stating the same. Please quote whatever law you “think” says that and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.]

    He may also have had British citizenship, but that would depend on British law, not US law.

    If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. Period.

    [Ed. False “period”.]

    If he was born in Kenya to an American mother, he is also a citizen, whether a “natural born citizen” or not is subject to interpretation. He may also be a citizen of the UK, Kenya and/or Indonesia – that depends on the law in those countries. But having British, Kenyan or Indonesian dual citizenship does NOT affect his status as a US citizen.

    [If he’s not born in Hawaii, he wasn’t born a citizen, not under the law in 1961. But while my original lawsuit did chide the NJ SOS for not looking into all of this, I state quite peacefully in my suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii… but is nonetheless still not eligible.]

  196. Pardon if I’ve confused you with someone else but I have read blog comments, I believe from Mr. Donofrio, saying that whether someone was a NBC depends in part on policies of the nation in which they were born.

    I don’t approve at all of the USA having its definitions of citizenship depend on what the other nation claims.

    [Ed. Circular argument. Had Obama’s father chosen to raise his son in Great Britain and later Kenya, there’s nothing the US could do to stop that because he was a British Citizen at birth.]

    If we want to say, you are a citizen if both your parents are US citizens and you are born anywhere in the world (or even outer space, whatever!) then that is for us to decide. The other nation can claim anything it wants and I don’t want that to matter.

    Also, gender of parent has no rightful place in citizenship legality, so it shouldn’t matter whether it was the father or mother than came here from Kenya or etc. (There is a higher standard put against fathers per proof, because of the difficulty of proving paternity!)

    BTW, this business about Chester Arthur is incredible. So, how many elected Presidents do you consider not actually rightful claimants due to citizenship issues, how many for other reasons, etc?

    [Ed. None. Read my previous article. Every other President we’ve had was born in the US to two US parents unless they were Pres under grandfather clause.]

  197. […] are  ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to […]

  198. [Ed. – The grandfather clause was pointed out to show that the Framers made a distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural born citizens”, and it’s not the only relevant point on this issue. The requirements for Senate and Representative are also reduced to “Citizen”. But the Op Ed piece fails to mention that. Do you honestly believe that if this goes before SCOTUS they too will ignore the three (not one) separate distinctions? ]

    OK folks, Team Obama and its allied MSM have finally responded to Leo Donofrio’s Supreme Court position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” — proceeding from phase 1 (ignore) to phase 2 (ridicule) now to phase 3 (respond with legal points) … on the way to phase 4 (acceptance).

    Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews — http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Barack-Obama-Natural-Bo-by-Hargrove-081207-817.html — in a nutshell is as follows:

    The Framers elected not to define “natural born citizen,” except by exempting themselves, which self exemption “could be due the fact that they were not born in the United States without regard to whether or not they had been subject to British jurisdiction,” and the Framers’ lack of concern about dual citizenship or loyalties is shown by their only requiring Presidents to have been residents in the United States for 14 years — meaning an eligible candidate born in the United States still could have resided under the jurisdiction of another country for 21 years or more;

    [Ed. The framers couldn’t have set the requirement back further than14 years. The Constitution wouldn’t be ratified until 1788. Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire’s ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution and on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations. George Washington wasn’t sworn in until April 30, 1789… As it is, for purposes of the residency requirement to have been met at all, you have to take the start of the United States back to 1775…

    “when the Revolutionaries seized control of each of the thirteen colonial governments, set up the unifying Second Continental Congress, and formed a Continental Army. The following year, they formally declared their independence as a new nation, the United States of America.”


    Fourteen years… right back to the start of the Revolution. That makes sense for two reasons

    a. It excludes anybody who wasn’t in the US at the time the revolution first started. Since the first few Presidents couldn’t be natural born citizens, by making it 14 years they made it as long as possible so as to include those most likely to be loyal to the new nation.

    This from “The Law Of The American Constitution”, by Charles Burdik – 1922:

    The committee of 11 radically modified the original proposal of the Committee of five by requiring that a person to be eligible to the office of President shall be a ‘native-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’. If these provisions had stood alone, it would still have been possible for a person who had become a citizen of the States just prior to the adoption of the Constitution to have been elected at anytime thereafter as President.”

    Nobody resided in the United States for more than 14 years using even the most liberal definition of the original date the United States could have first come into existence (1775)… So 14 years prior to Washington’s inauguration was the longest possible time they could have made the residency requirement, or NOBODY would have been eligible to be President under the Constitution.

    The committee reports are available and Mr. Burdick’s research is very strong thereto. He quotes Elliot’s Debates.
    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html (Have at it kids.)

    Please note that as the committee discussions evolved, the requirement for President went from “citizen” to “native-born citizen” to the final cut of “natural-born citizen.” The terms were not interchangeable to the people who wrote this Document. They struggled over every word.

    Also, the Framers didn’t exclude themselves from this requirement as they did with the grandfather clause and the natural born citizen req.]

    and even if the Framers WERE concerned about split loyalties, those were intended to be addressed on a “case by case basis” — and it would not be reasonable to conclude that Obama would have British loyalty since the British Citizenship conferred on him at birth was only “due to his biological relationship to an estranged and unfamiliar father.”

    Team Obama concludes that the Framer’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as “Citizen” meaning all that is required is birth in the United States, even if neither parent is an American Citizen.

    I’d say, if that’s all they got, Leo’s case is a slam dunk!

    [Ed. – I don’t know why you think this is an Obama team production. It’s just a story by Op Ed. I would expect something a bit stronger than this from team Obama.]

  199. […] Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was a British Subject at Birth December 6, 2008  6:36 PM [I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  “Chester […] […]

  200. Slow Poke Says:

    Another factoid: George Romney, after serving as Governor of Michigan, also ran for President. He was a candidate for President in 1968, ultimately losing the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/george-w-romneymney.html
    It is notable that while Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for office. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and changed the status of such children born to US Citizens abroad to that of citizen. Therefore, Romney, if challenged, would likely have been ruled ineligible for the office of President.
    Why can BHO’s ancestry be tracked as this was?

  201. HiLeo:

    You obviously have your arguments well in hand now, and it has been a very great pleasure reading how you have handled your exchanges with your commentators. Both kind, and firm. Good job!

    Perhaps you will permit me to add a new wrinkle: the problem facing Congress when it comes to certifying Obama’s election.

    Every U.S. Senator and Representative must swear to the Congressional Oath before they may take their office:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

    It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization.

    Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

    In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act. These regulations are now all codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

    The Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    If citizenship you hold is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, then you are NOT a “natural born citizen.” Barack Obama’s citizenship is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” because it came through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    In other words, if the citizenship you hold is based on an Act of Congress, then your citizenship is based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. You are a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth. The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

    Again, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was passed by the 82nd Congress, and amended through 1994, is still our current law.

    Again, every U.S. Senator and Representative must swear to the Congressional Oath before they may take their office.

    How can 535 members of Congress violate their oath and certify Barack Obama, if (by doing so) they will violate a law that 82nd Congress adopted, after passing it over President Harry Truman’s veto?

    This is the CRUNCH hanging over the heads of the 111th Congress.

  202. Interesting argument but from a legal standpoint, I don’t think it will fly. Whether Arthur was a natural-born citizen when he was born, there is no disagreement that he was born in Vermont, U.S.A..

    With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Arthur became a citizen of the United States by virtue of that amendment. At that point when Arthur’s father was naturalized became irrelevant.

    It would be facinating to explore whether a former slave could have been qualified legally to be President of the United States by virtue of the amendment. (Practically, it would not have been possible because of the passions and prejudices of the time). I contend he could.

    The Fourteenth Amendment begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

    There is a rule of law, almost as old as the law, that every word in a legal document must mean something. There are no stray or meaningless words in the writing. Therefore, one can conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment created two classes of American Citizens: those born here and those naturalized here.

    Arguably, the persons (slaves) born in the U.S.A. were given full citizenship as if they were born free. They became “natural-born citizens.”

    Why else would the amendment make the distinction between “born” and “naturalized” citizens? Naturalized citizens have all the rights and privileges that natural-born citizens have except they could not run for president.

    I would argue the same rule would apply to Chester A. Arthur, who became a citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment in1868, and was not nominated for the vice-presidency until 1880. I say he was a “natural-born citizen” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    [Ed. Incorrect. The term “natural born citizen” refers to a status which you must attain at the time you are “born”. If you aren’t a natural born citizen at birth, you’ll never be one. Also, the 14th Amendment confers the status of “Citizen” not “Natural born citizen”.]


  204. Leo,
    You are amazing. And beyond that, pretty good looking. But enough of that, this isn’t e-Harmony. My name is Jeanne from California. My aunt and I have been following you since before the election. Your endless efforts has captured my interest, my heart and my soul tremendously. You are the only one who seems to get it and you have no idea how much we appreciate your educating us and the rest of the nation. I only wish I knew what I could do to help. We are willing to do whatever it takes. Any suggestions. I would love for you to respond to my work e-mail jstanley@moneymailer.com. I know you work night and day and I am just somebody across the U.S. that wants to help you and our nation to uphold our constituion. I am sitting on pins and needles regarding tomorrow as we all know you are as well. Good luck to you and all of us! You deserve the right to be heard and the right to win! Jeanne

  205. Leo, great job. I agree with one of the commentators above. If you could write a post summarizing this whole case, it would serve well to publish in papers, as well as blogs. Keep up the good work!

  206. [Ed. Yup. Good find.]

    The 1850 Federal Census in Hoosick, Renssealaer, New York , Dated 8th of August. 1850 does show Chester Arthur -20 years old- Born in Vermont
    living with:
    William Arthur-56 years old- born in Ireland
    Malving Arthur- 48 years old- born in Vermont

    Anne E. -22
    William Jr.- 16
    Mary – 8

    Notice the Date of the Census – 8th of Aug. 1850

    If he were born in 1830….his age would have read 19 years old as it wasn”t Oct 1850 yet.

    information from Ancestry.com

  207. To the Elector: Wayne Abraham

    I believe you are confusing the term “Natural Born Citizen” with “Citizen”. We have three categories of citizenship; Natural Born Citizen, Naturalized Citizen, and Citizen.

    POTUS is the only office in the government that the Constitution requires NBC status.

    The Framers of the Constitution required this status because they did not want to have a POTUS to have any Split-Loyalties. Their concern for spilt-loyalty issues did NOT require or encompass a location requirement. The requirement was that both parents of POTUS had to be Citizens of the U.S. when the POTUS was born. That is the only way a POTUS can be qualified as being of the type Natural Born Citizen. The Framers of our Constitution were NOT Natural Born Citizens; they were to be Citizens. That is why the Framers grandfathered themselves into the constitution by saying that this requirement only applied after the Constitution was adopted (and not before).

    Obama obviously has Split-Loyalty issues. You can see an example of this on You-Tube when he was campaigning for his cousin in Kenya two years ago. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b63bBCC2-yM&feature=related )

    NBC is an issue of loyalty NOT location. That is why Obama’s Birth Certificate issue is not relevant to the issue of NBC. His parent’s citizenship is the REAL issue. Nothing else.

    Please re-think your decision.

  208. Addendum To the Elector: Wayne Abraham

    Please consider this. If Obama is made President. Don’t you think anyone in the military can refuse to take orders from him on the grounds that he is not a legal President ? How many lawsuits to you think might be filed in regards to bills that he signs because of his questionable legality issues ? If he is not a legal President, how can he be impeached ? If the vine is poisoned, the fruit of the vine is poisoned. Anybody imprisoned or found guilty in federal courts would have grounds for appeal in that the Attorney General or any other appointment would be null and void because the President wasn’t legal. This is no small matter. For the sake of our country, please, please, please reconsider your decision.

  209. TexasVoter Says:

    My wife told me that (while the Sunday football game was on today, 12/07) she saw a brief promo for Keith Olbermann’s show for this coming Monday, Dec. 8. She said it was something about “Obama under attack” and may have mentioned “Obama eligible to be President.”

    Is possible that “in the tank for Obama” Olbermann is so worried about this issue that he has decided he must try to give this issue his own personal spin? Or is he just trying to ride a gravy train of publicity?

    If you can stomach his report on Monday, please post here for those of us who can’t quite keep luch down around Olbermann.

  210. Leo,
    Here is an interesting article I just found…

    Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews


  211. This just in from http://www.obamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm:

    Go to http://birthdatabase.com/query.php — and enter: First Name = “Barack” — Last Name = “Obama” — Age = “48”

    You will see that his birthplace is listed as Somerville, MA in government records. No wonder, Obama has not released any of his University records. The Born Conspiracy plot just keeps getting thicker. Looks like, the people of this great nation voted to elect one of the biggest fraudsters in history. Now, this is a big argument in favor of the plaintiffs, for all the SCOTUS lawsuits dealing with this issue and the Supremes should expose this fraudster by atleast hearing the lawsuits, if they have any respect for the Constitution and security of this great nation. LEO, I HOPE YOU WILL CONTACT BIRTHDATABASE.COM AND CHECK WITH THEM, WHERE THEY OBTAINED THis BIRTH RECORD FROM. THIS COULD BE HELPFUL IN PERSUADING THE SUPREMES, TO GET TO HEAR YOUR LAWSUIT.

  212. F all politicians Says:

    What do most of USA’s rulers have in common? A “secret club”


    *barely* representing the interests of the people since 1776

  213. Whether there is any significant information on Mr. Obama’s birth certificate or not, is now immaterial to the eligibility issue. However, his efforts to prevent revelation of the document is still a major issue. His actions do create suspicions that something is amiss. He is going to be in command of the U.S armed forces and he will possess the codeds to launch U.S. nuclear missiles. How could Americams sleep well if they are left with doubts created by his actions about the contents of his birth certificate.

    Americans must be confident that their President is not in a position where he might be subject to blackmail threats in the future. But, Mr. Obama’s protective obsession about his birth certificate and other records is a negative that could harm and reduce his effectiveness as President. Already, his actions have prompted enquiry into other areas other than the eligibility factor as an American with dual citizenship at birth. Questions about the authenticity of his Certification of Live Birth posted on his website; complete truthfulness of names used when filling out his Bar Application; and authenticity of a print out of his selective Service application as well as questions about his actual birth place have surfaced.

    Mr. Obama owes it to his family, particularly his two young children, and all those in the U.S. and throughout the world who supported, applauded and in his achievements, to settle the issue of his eligibility now. The cost and value to him and his presidency will be much greater than the monetary cost of law firms and lawyers to protect the information.

    Once again, America might be saddled with a President who starts his reign with a divided nation. He has accomplished much that could never be taken away from him, lets hope there is nothing really significant that is being protcted in his vault birth certificate.

    One thing is problematic. It is the newsmedia who has recently presented this to the public as an attempt to change the vote. This is merely an attempt to ensure that the Constitution of the U.S. is followed, especially by someone who is elected by that Constitution and who has responsibility for guaridng the very same Constitution. We really do owe Leo every thank you that can be uttered or written about. Here in Canada we have a parallel situation which is forcing us all to consider what our Constitution really means.

  214. Allochtoon Says:

    Dear Leo Donofrio et al.,

    As a historian as well as a reader, my thanks to the three of you for this fascinating discovery! I hope you get around to writing and publishing your book on it. It seems richly suitable for other media, whether (audio- or visual) documentary, ‘docu-drama’, or dramatized history of various sorts (from one-man play to something like Longitude!), too!

    Meanwhile. has anyone else noticed how the English-language Wikipedia article on Chester A. Arthur seems to have been rendered inaccessible to editing – in contrast, e.g., to the articles on James A. Garfield and Grover Cleveland (among who knows how many others)?

    [Ed. Hilarious. We can’t have the truth getting out now can we, Allochtoon. Nice post.]

    When I last checked it a couple minutes ago it said at the bottom “This page was last modified on 6 December 2008, at 00:45 a.m.”

    A (not unsinister?) ‘mini-mystery’ for the ‘cyber-detectives’?

    With all good wishes and prayers for you and the future of all your work,


  215. Obama Researcher Says:

    Well I believe in multiple lifetimes. Dunham repeats. I say it is the same person just like OJ came back to get caught this time.

  216. Obama Researcher Says:

    jbjd Says:
    December 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
    The several lawsuits brought thus far to establish BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS and to restrain the Electoral College from voting in the meantime, argue different causes of action, by Plaintiffs not similarly situated. In other words, each case is different. However, no one has brought this case.

    Plaintiff(s) (member of armed forces or National Guard about to be deployed into a war zone or, members of the soldier’s family) files a lawsuit alleging a civil rights violation as the cause of action, that violation being denial of the right to life and liberty without due process; on account of the fact, assuming BO is not eligible to be President, any law he issues is illegal; any order carried out is unlawful; and any killing based on those orders can be construed as murder under the Uniform Military Code of Justice, subjecting the soldier to imprisonment or execution. And, since the violation has not yet occurred but most certainly will if he is sworn in, the suit has to ask the court to Declare whether he is eligible, an action allowed under the federal Declarative Judgment Act; and, until that decision issues, to order the EC to refrain from voting on 12.15 or, if after 12.15, to order the House not to certify the EC vote.

    And all of the research and documentation thus far on the internet and in other cases – the dead CA elector; the NJ S of S staffer admitting he just assumed the DNC vetted BO; the “Certification” of birth that BO claims is a “Birth Certificate” – can be used to argue he is ineligible!

    This case might have a good chance to succeed not only in the lower federal court but also, if it gets there, in the SCOTUS, inasmuch as it would provide the Supremes with a legal hook to take the case on cert.


  217. After further research I think I know why he lied about his father’s age. There’s a statement in the August 22, 1880 Brooklyn Eagle when speaking of when Chester’s father came over from the UK…or perhaps when he left the UK:

    “there’s a color of probability given to this by the admitted fact that, Mr. Arthur’s father had grown very nearly to man’s estate before he came to this country from Ireland.”

    Had his father been 24 before he came over from Ireland he would have reached man’s estate, or would have been of age. Without reaching the age of “man’s estate” he was perhaps unable to either inherit British citizenship or to convey it to his children. From what I’ve been able to find, the age of “man’s estate” was either 20 or 21 at that time.

    This is likely the reason Chester Arthur lied about his father’s age. The fact that his father was not naturalized could have been determined at the time. His father’s age could not have determined as easily.

    [Ed. Except Chester also lied and said that his father had him when he was 40 years old. As it was Chester was born when his Dad was 33. Either way, that’s plenty old enough.]

    Do a search for Hastings Chester Arthur in that time period on the search engine you provided and it comes up as the first article.

  218. There is a wikipedia article on Natural Born Citizen which could be updated with all the new info you have. This would also help educate the general public on the issue who might go there.


  219. Lisa in PA Says:

    Our Constitution has been trashed enough. Thank God and the blessed baby Jesus someone like you is standing up for our rights, democracy, and American Values.

    I am sick to death of arrogant UNELECTED activist judges destroying our democracy by making up their own laws from the bench.

    With this case, we MUST ensure that the will of a large majority of Americans is set aside, and that nine unelected judges invent a scheme to choose our next President. After all, America is a DEMOCRACY!

  220. Does anyone know how or when SCOTUS releases the information on the remaining cases. Of course I am only interested in Leo’s!

  221. Joss Brown Says:


    The official Somerville records are only about Obama having been registered as a resident, while attending Harvard Law School. They don’t mean that he was born there.

  222. Birthdatabase is not reliable for place of birth. I think it lists address upon listing, which for Obama, may have been when he was at Harvard.

  223. Leo,

    I am so proud of you for your time and effort in pursuing this lawsuit. I am praying that our highest court stands up and does what is right for our country.
    Please keep the faith that the truth will come out.

    God Bless,


  224. [Ed. Interesting theory. I don’t think it would work in court. But you get points for the argument.]

    Hi Leo,

    I always thought the 14 year part of that clause was because under the rules at that time, even though you were natural born, you were not fully a citizen with the full rights thereof as a “natural born citizen” until you reached age of majority which was age 21 back then. 21 + 14 =35, which is the age required to serve as the President. Not sure what is the exact reasoning for the 14 years but just thought I’d share what I always surmised when I read that clause. JMHO.


  225. Ned,

    That birthdate site is not accurate. For instance I typed in my fathers name, who was born in texas, and it returned his birth place as pompano, fl. But it did have the birth date correct.

    Oh and good work Leo. Been lurking for 3 weeks. Patriots will prevail.

  226. A lot of people seem to have a problem with the terms “natural born” and “naturalized”.

    This is the way I see it.

    Everybody agrees that a child born of two U.S. Citizens, born in the U.S., would be considered a “natural born” citizen. No one disputes this, even though it is not written so in the constitution. The term naturalized refers to the action of granting citizenship at the time of birth (or retroactively) based on congressional law. Constitutional law with respect to citizenship grants congress only the power to define how a citizen may become naturalized. By definition, the act of transferring (by law) “natural born” status would be the process of naturalization. If only constitutional law can define “natural born” status and no congressional law can grant “natural born” status, then only a change to the constitution could clear this matter up, unless you want to accept that only a child born in the United State of citizens of the United States can be a natural born citizen.

    Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

  227. For Ned,

    I checked out your website: http://birthdatabase.com/query.php and found the same information about Mr. Obama that you did.

    Somerville, MA is very near Harvard in Cambridge, MA.

    I checked out my own information, and found my two most recent previous addresses. Our current address of almost a year and a half was not listed.

    Apparently the addresses shown on this website are relatively recent addresses, not birthplaces. Mr. Obama must have lived in Somerville while attending Harvard.

  228. piecemaker8 Says:


    You continue to amaze me. You are the most tenaceous human being I have ever known. There truly is a star in the sky reserved for you. I hope you write a book on this when the dust settles. I definitely want to buy one and have you sign it.


  229. I had a comment submitted earlier today around 4:30, within my browser it states that it is awaiting moderation. Is my comment off the mark and if that is the case, please enlighten me as to my error.

  230. Michele, you can go here and see exactly how the court reviews the cases scheduled for conference:


    I’ve also looked up from there, something you might be interested in:

    “Roughly 70 percent of the petitions end at this point, with a vote not to accept the case. The Justices may be satisfied that the decision of the lower court was correct, or that the case has no national significance, or, in some instances, that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. Whatever the reason for denial, the effect is to allow the decision of the lower court to stand.” –

    See Section: Types of Cases the Court Hears – http://www.supremecourthistory.org/03_how/subs_how/03_a08.html

  231. If what you have uncovered is true, should we now go back and see what laws were signed and orders given by an alleged usurper of the presidency. Could this in fact change history?

  232. http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=467#comments posted above by pmb09 is originally from


    Hargrove has written many pro-Obama articles there. I don’t believe he is a lawyer. Some of his points may be taken up by the Obama legal team.

  233. [Ed. Please just call him Barack. That’s his name. Let’s stick to the law and skip the snarky stuff. It’s useless.]

    Ned @ 9:24 pm

    clicked on the obamafile latest link you provided and the page is coming up blank.

    then i went to the birth database and entered the info you suggested. it also came up blank.

    they are bleaching fast now aren’t they.

    Somerville, Mass., would certainly put a HUGE dent in the mystique the Barry folks have built around their Messiah message. It would be too funny if it turned out to be true. Imagine selling just a regular old guy born in a regular old town in the good ole USA born to a gentleman from Kenya. My question would be how the heck did Ann get there? And why? Nothing in anything I’ve EVER read about Ann would have ever suggested she lived or reared her first born state side. Wow! Can you imagine if this turned out to be the simple truth. Good golly gee!

    Mr. Donofrio – thank you so much for your work related to Barry’s eligibility. And now to learn that Chester Arthur was a usurper without question is indeed an historical astonishment. What is it about such men that they believe they can get away with such deceit? I don’t get it, but I digress.

    My question is how do we now address the laws he signed, the executive orders he signed, and everything else he put his signature too? Since he was the usurper you’ve unearthed and reported on then how do the SCOTUS or whomever revisit his Presidential orders and address the legality of them? I read at Wikipedia that his greatest accomplishment was the Pendleton Service Reform Act although he signed into law other unrelated acts. What recourse, if any, might you suggest our Congress may or may not act upon? Or is this moot b/c it happened over a hundred years ago? My goodness, so many questions.

  234. [Ed. Doesn’t work for representative though, Goat. Don’t think it will fly.]

    Hi Leo,

    Same reasoning for the years and age set for Senator, imo. 21, the age for reaching the age of majority and full citizenship privileges plus 9 = 30.

    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they seek to represent.

    The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison justified this arrangement by arguing that the “senatorial trust” called for a “greater extent of information and stability of character.”

    And of course we know the restrictions and requirements the framers set were even stricter. They not only wanted an older person, but only a “natural born” citizen. Although per my prior argument, while being natural born at birth, he did not get the full privileges of said “natural born citizenship” until he reached the age of majority, i.e., age 21. 14 + 21 = 35 , the minimum age to serve as President.


  235. Re: TexasVoter Says:

    December 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm
    My wife told me that (while the Sunday football game was on today, 12/07) she saw a brief promo for Keith Olbermann’s show for this coming Monday, Dec. 8. She said it was something about “Obama under attack” and may have mentioned “Obama eligible to be President.”

    That appears to be correct. While I was looking at this website my wife noticed it on the television, too, and brought it to my attention in time for me to catch the very end of the promo. I’ve been searching the internet ever since for more on it but without luck. I was thinking maybe it was just mass hysteria on the part of my wife and me until I saw TexasVoter’s blog entry.

    MSM going from near-total prolonged blackout straight to primetime treatment of the issue reminds me of Monte Python’s Spanish Inquisition because I sure never expected it.



    To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm.

    By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office.

    But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion.

    The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad. Since the time of Louis XIV in France, every major European power had developed what was called a ”secret service” along the lines of the current CIA and the former Soviet KGB. The damage that such agencies could do was vivid in the American imagination, and it was far from imaginary. The delegates repeatedly cited as a horrible example the recent demise of Poland. Poland had an elective monarch, the electorate consisting of a corrupt nobility, and only fifteen years before the American Constitutional Convention, the secret services of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had connived to engineer the election of their own choice for king, whereupon the entirety of Poland was partitioned and divided among those three powers. As Charles Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina, put it, the danger was that ”we shall soon have the scenes of the Polish Diets and elections re-acted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America.”

    Fear of foreign influence was pandemic. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wanted to go so far as to prevent foreigners from becoming citizens, taking the position that naturalized citizens would always have divided loyalties. On much the same ground, John Jay, then Superintendent of Foreign Affairs—the predecessor of the office of Secretary of State—wrote to Washington, as president of the Convention, urging that it would be ”wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Meanwhile, a rumor floated in the summer of 1787 that the Convention intended to invite the Bishop of Osnaburgh, a distant relative of George III, to assume the American crown—a rumor that delegates publicly denied despite the mantle of secrecy cloaking all other deliberations. Such nervous talk emphasized to the Convention that it must come up with something that in no way resembled a monarchy nor could be converted into a monarchy (which would be possible if naturalized citizens should be eligible to head the executive branch).

    Debates concerning the mode of electing the president raged until early September, less than two weeks before the Convention adjourned. The Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate from South Carolina, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame all objections that had been raised against earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system: the state legislatures (or, if the legislatures so chose, the voting public) would select a number of electors equal to the states’ Senators and Representatives combined; the electors would vote in their home states for two candidates, one of whom must be an inhabitant of another state. Whoever got the most votes, if a majority, became president, and the runner-up became vice president. If no candidate polled a majority, the House would choose the president, each state delegation having one vote. The president would serve a four-year term and could be re-elected any number of times.

    The system was so diffuse—cockamamie is not too strong a word—that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communication facilities then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure, considering the doubts about divided loyalties expressed by Gerry, Jay, and others, as well as the fear of conspirators who might in future invite foreign royalty to assume the presidency, Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language that found its way into Article II, section I, of the Constitution: ”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.”

    That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice. Nor did anyone speak in its support: its meaning and its rationale went without saying. As an aside, the wisdom of the restriction and of the larger electoral system of which it was a part was soon borne out. In the presidential elections of 1796 and 1800 agents of Revolutionary France attempted by both overt and covert means to determine the outcome.

    Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose or understanding of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances both at home and internationally that prevailed at the time of the founding have long since vanished, so perhaps a rethinking is in order. And yet, it seems to me on balance that conditions today and in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers. Take the matter of possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is structurally as diffuse as it was in the eighteenth century, but in practice it might as well be totally centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instantaneous portability of money. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars; just consider the prospective influence of a few billion—a sum well within the means of a large number of countries any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural born American, might be eager to support a favorite son candidate, that is one who had been born and raised in their country.

    The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar efforts) is the president’s power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn’t think so; nor do I; nor I suspect do the vast majority of Americans.

    Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a Representative is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the constitutional restriction?

    Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person comes to America from country ”X” as a young man, takes out citizenship, become thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be. Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the suspicion of reproach.

    Let me cite a more tangible example, one closer to recent experience. We all know a number of Cuban-Americans. They are loyal to our country, now their country too. They are pillars of their communities and are more fiercely patriotic than most natural born Americans. And yet, as the recent to-do over Elian Gonzalez demonstrated, few of them are able to regard Cuba dispassionately or treat relations with Castro’s Cuba with equanimity. Suppose we had had a Cuban-born president in the White House at the time of the Gonzalez controversy. Would that president have been able to retain objectivity and, as importantly, any shred of credibility under the circumstances?

    In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.

  237. Oops! Wong Kim Ark was decided by an Arthur Appointee! Guess that case is out the window.

  238. Have you seen this yet!
    This is posted on Citizen Wells Website as MoniQue (moniquemonicat.wordpress.com) had asked him to post it.


    This is a “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” document from the State of Arizona. The document signed by Mr. Obama shows he solemlny swears he is a natural born citizen.

  239. I would point out that the Yale Law Review article posted above – http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf – specifically says:

    “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

    [Ed. She’s got an opinion like everybody else. She doesn’t cite a single case which says what she says. She doesn’t point out any of the Wong Kim Arc language that hurt her theory or that the Court in Wong Kim Arc
    decided not to hold that WKA was a nbc, but instead just said he was a Citizen. The rest of the footnotes are other opinions and there exists all of those pesky comments by the drafters of the 14th amendment which say “NBC is born in US to parents who are citizens.” ]

    In a footnote, numerous authorities are cited in support of this assertion:

    “2. See, e.g., Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 357 (1950); Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. I (1968); Means, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?, US.
    ) NEWS & WORLD REP., Dec. 23, 1955, at 26; Morse, Natural-Born Citizen of the United States-Eligibility for the Office of President, 66 ALB. L.]. 99 (1904); McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 CONGo REC. 15,875 (1967).
    Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth. See infra note 24. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment confirmed this birthright citizenship, and guaranteed its application to groups that had previously been excluded, such as the descendants of former slaves, see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857); see infra Section II-B. See.generally United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (child born on American soil of alien parents is American citizen); Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23F.2d 862
    (D. Md. 1928) (same); Tomasicchio v. Acheson, ‘:i8.F. Supp. 166 (D.D.C. 1951) (same); infra note

    The focus of the rest of the article is exploring what we can deem the “McCain” argument — i.e., the question of whether McCain’s birth in Panama to American Citizen parents is sufficient to qualify for “natural born” status.

    In other words, your McCain argument is subject to debate — though it has now been rendered moot by the fact that McCain lost the election. (If Obama were to be somehow disqualified, pursuant to the 20th Amendment Congress the Presidency would fall to Joe Biden).

    But you don’t have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to the Obama argument.

    [Ed. I have a peg.]

    By the way, is there a reason you have not posted your 2nd Application (the one filed Nov 14) or your Supplemental Brief (the one filed Nov 26?).

    [Ed. My second application is EXACTLY the same application as my first. If you read Rule 22.4 of the Supreme Court Rules, you’ll see that the second application must be in the form of 10 copies of the “original” application. The Supplemental brief is rather boring. All it says is, “Please take notice of a new case called “Wrotnowski v. Connecticut of State”. The Rule provides that only new cases or other new intervening matter can be the subject of a supp brief.
    And you can read that Wrotnowski brief at the top right hand corner of this blog.]

    I can’t for the life of me figure out what basis you claim to support certiorari under Rule 10. How does your case go beyond the question of whether the New Jersey Secretary of State is federally required to make an independent determination of the qualifications of Presidential candidates?

    [Ed. Her duty under her oath of office as is required by the US Constitution as well as her duty under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and the New jersey Constitution to uphold the Constitution. Also see Jenness v. Fortson and Rosario v Rockefeller SCOTUS cases.]

    And why isn’t your case rendered moot by the fact that the general election has already taken place?

    [Ed. Because I requested a stay of the “national election” not just the popular vote which is just a part of the national election. The national election includes the electoral college. ]

    And what authority does the US Supreme Court have to stay the New Jersey electoral college vote, given that Article II of the Constitution provides, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

    [Ed. Check out McCarthy v. Briscoe SCOTUS case. Also, SCOTUS if different provisions of the Constitution are in conflict, SCOTUS has the chops to fix it.]

    You have been so thorough in your historical analysis; I’d love to see what you presented to the Supreme Court to address these basic jurisdictional and procedural questions.

  240. [Ed. 🙂 ]

    Hey Leo,

    Good move to stay away from the Hinman-Berg.

    Get it?…. Hinman-Berg….I’m so funny….

    Good luck and God’s speed.

  241. Leo, I don’t know if this will help you, but here it is.

    From the State of Arizona, Obama signed that he was a natural born citizen of the US.

    Click to access arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf

    From this site:


  242. Simon Diamond Says:

    Leo Donofrio = Captain America

  243. That AZ document is going to be really useful, imo. Obama is allegedly a constitutionally trained lawyer. He knows or should have known the difference between Naturalized, Derivative, Statutory, Native Born, and Natural Born citizenship. We now got him signing in his own hand that he meet the qaulifications mandated by the constitution, i.e., “natural born citizen”. And whether he is a “native born” citizen is what the birth certificate issue is all about, but regardless of that issue, he is and was NEVER a natural born citizen. His father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born and thus Obama is not a Natural Born Citzen!

    Mountain Publius Goat

  244. Leo –

    As we all cross fingers and hold our proverbial breath, can I get your opinion on: going forward?
    Will not this phoenix rise again after the Obama Admin first signed piece of legislation’s ink dries? Would not a savvy – and I’m clearly not advocating anyone put themselves in a legal sticky wicket – defendant claim said statute cannot simply be because the current holder of the office is a usurper? Then, by requesting relevant evidence, all the “non-burned” data (had to give a nod to Chet) must be brought forth. Keeping the faith but preparing for the 15 Round Fight. Good Luck.


  245. Wow, thanks for the quick reply! I don’t see how Jenness v. Fortson and Rosario v Rockefeller help you, however. Both were decided adversely the petitioner’s challenging the state practices, and neither involved the same issue. Jenness was an effort to challenge state practices that made it difficult for a candidate of a minority ballot to qualify for the ballot – that was challenged under 14th amendment grounds, and the Georgia state practices upheld. Rosario involved a voter’s challenge to a New York law governing the deadline for voter registration in primary elections.

    [Ed. The following language:

    “A State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, at 442. “It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral process is a legitimate and valid state goal.” Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 761; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).

    Both of those cases were on behalf of individuals or groups trying to assert their rights to be on the ballot, or to vote — thus there was arguably a fundamental constitutional right involved, and a clear 14th amendment based claim. Even against that test, the Supreme Court sided with the respective states.

    [Ed. In McCarthy v. Briscoe, McCarthy applied to Justice Powell for an emergency stay requesting that Powell order the Texas Secretary of State to put his name on the Presidential ballot as the Texas requirements for ballot access were alleged to be unconstitutional. Powell agreed and issued the order. this is precedent that SCOTUS can order a SOS to put a name on or take a name off a ballot if it’s being there or not there is found to be unconstitutional.]

    Your case is the opposite — you are trying to force people OFF the ballot, so all 14th amendment considerations run against you.

    [Ed. 14th Amendment only deal with “citizen” status, it doesn’t confer “natural born citizen”.]

    Plus, the Jenness and Rosario cases were both brought in federal court — you started in state court, so I still don’t see how you get over the Rule 10 hurdle.

    Rule 10:
    “(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;”
    (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

    As I understand it, your case was dismissed by the New Jersey courts, so you don’t really have a “decision” to appeal from. You can’t come in under 10(b) because there are no cases “in conflict” with yours — and 10(c) seems like a long shot.

    [Ed. The inclusion on the ballots of candidates who are not constitutionally eligible defrauds the electoral process and violates the various Secretaries of State oaths of office which they must take according to Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution. That is the Federal issue. Also, see “McCarthy v. Brisco” where an application for a stay, just like in my case, was granted by SCOTUS to force the Secretary of State to place a name on the ballot. If SCOTUS can put a name on the ballot they can certainly take one off if that name being on the ballot would lead to an unconstituional President.]

    I understand that your ARGUMENT is that the New Jersey secretary of state should be required to make a determination of the qualifications of Presidential candidates (as Arizona apparently does, according to the above post from Kreisel00) – but if the court were to hold that every state must do that, then they could be faced with having to rule on inconsistent determinations from one state to another in the future as to what those qualifications are.

    [Ed. And that’s why now that the issue is before them, they will hopefully make a decision as to whether the candidates are eligible or not eligible… as to all 50 states. ]

    The Supremacy clause means that federal law takes precedence over state law, but it doesn’t require state authorities to enforce federal provisions.

    [Ed. It does require state authorities enforce the Constitution when their oath of office includes the duty to “uphold the Constitution”… upholding the Constitution is different than enforcing something like an FEC code… I didn’t rely on the FEC codes at all, just the Constitution.]

    In any case, during the general election, NJ voters are selecting only “electors” — not candidates – so it seems to me that Well’s obligation is to make sure that the 15 electors for Obama are qualified. It would be the job of the electors, not the Secretary of State, to decide whether the candidate they are pledged to is qualified — as Wayne Abraham, quoted above, seems to understand.

    [Ed. I don’t think that dog will hunt because of Bush v. Gore.]

  246. I’d like to add that McCarthy v. Briscoe doesn’t seem to help you — in that case, Justice Powell issued in injunction requiring that Eugene McCarthy’s name be added to the Texas ballot, but that order went out in late September, well ahead of the November election. The orders specifically noted,

    [Ed. The time issue was not the only issue. In that case, McCarthy was a 3rd party candidate. He wasn’t going to win. Regardless, the case is sighted because it shows that SCOTUS has the power to command a Secretary of State to change the ballot. That’s the precedent. The time issue was jjust a factor in whether SCOTUS would apply their power. So, the case does help quite a bit as it establishes the power of SCOTUS to do that which I asked them to do.]

    ” The earliest date when printed ballots are required for any purpose is October 13, 20 days before the election….. Thus there appears to be ample time to add Senator McCarthy’s name.”

    So that is issuing an order BEFORE an election when there is plenty of time — which is very different than trying to STOP or DELAY an election that is Constitutionally mandated for a date certain. Keep in mind that in Bush v. Gore, the lack of adequate time for a full recount before votes had to be certified to the electoral college was cited as a reason for stopping the recount — which seems to suggest that the date for the meeting of electors is viewed as inviolate.

    [Ed. But when two provisions of the Constitution are in conflict, SCOTUS has the power to act.]

  247. Hi Leo (sent this earlier with a link but I don’t think it went through. Here it is w/o link),

    I’ve been doing some reading at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and found something interesting regarding Chester Arthur.  It is in an article regarding the book that Arthur P. Hinman wrote and circulated entitled “How a British Subject became President of the United States”. 

    What is interesting to me is that in stating the main charge that Chester Arthur was born in Canada in March of 1928 under the name William Chester Alan Arthur, Hinman goes into detail about Arthur having a younger brother named Chester Abell Arthur who was born in 1830 in North Fairfield, Vermont but this younger brother died a year later.  He states that in 1834, another brother was born and was given the name William Arthur, Jr. and that the name “William” was dropped from “William Chester Alan Arthur and he was known from that point as Chester Alan Arthur.  He further states that there were records showing that in 1845, Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.

    Leo, have you read anything about President Arthur’s brothers and their overlapping names?  Was Hinman really onto something or did he fabricate an elaborate story?


  248. In my above post, there is a typo on the first birth year I mentionrd It should be 1828 instead of 1928! It is late & I am tired! 🙂

  249. [ed. Thank you.]

    Since you don’t provide an email address, I’ll put this edit note in plain sight:
    “while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.” should, of course, be “plain sight”.

  250. The true, albeit unmentioned, reason why the Supreme Court will never, ever, ever rule that Obama cannot take office:

    Congress has the power to impeach federal judges – including Supreme Court justices. Take Samuel Chase, for example (impeached and acquitted). The vast majority of federal government impeachments have been federal judges.

    If I’m not mistaken Congress has a huge surplus of democrats.

    I don’t think the Supreme Court will get away with preventing TWO candidates who won the popular vote from taking office in a mere eight years. I think neither Congress nor the American people would stand for it.

    Case closed, I win.

  251. Hop2It Says:
    December 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    M-A-B, It’s true that Arthur was never elected as President & only assumed the office of POTUS after Garfield was assassinated. However, the truth remains that Arthur WAS ELECTED as Vice President under Garfield. This would have been illegal as well since you have to be a “natural born citizen” to serve as either President or Vice President. In other words, the same natural born requirement applies to both offices. Therefore, scholars should have been looking into it regardless

    M-A-B thinking…
    If Arthur was a lady from Alaska you could be sure that the opposition would have had 100 attorneys and 200 private investigators checking into every aspect of his past!

    I appreciate what you wrote. But, as a vice presidential candidate in 1880 for a government much smaller than today’s, and without the benefit of the Internet, telephone system, and other modern investigative tools, I doubt anyone would have invested much time. Very likely too is the false Canadian birth story that was disproved at the time. That may have made some people think that Arthur was a victim of smears. Some people did maintain the Canadian birth story as truth, and that could be a reason why Arthur’s administration was not very effective for the most part. He was unable to stop what was a massive pork barrel bill (massive for the 1880s, anyway).

  252. Allochtoon Says:

    Dear Leo Donofrio (et al.),

    I have not checked them all, but of the 62 languages listed in Wikipedia as having articles on Chester A. Arthur, many – including French, Spanish, German, Italian, Russian and Indonesian – have not been rendered inaccessible, so if anyone wants to pass the scoop on to the rest of the world first…

    English is still blocked, but not “Simple English”, so if anyone wants to reach the widest possible scope of the U.S. electorate…

    (This as of a little after 3 a.m. EST: so, I hope you are not awake to read this immediately).

    With all good wishes and prayers,


  253. So this means Chester Arthur was a usurper? Everything he signed is null and void?

  254. Kris (and Ed) said,

    [Ed. Note – “It’s like deja vu all over again.” Yogi Berra]

    The Chester Arthur research is incredible! It is this case all over again! Berg is the modern day Hinman!

    Maybe this explains one question many people have been pondering. Why would the Obama campaign post such an obvious forgery on their site? It was the ‘left hand’ so nobody would look at the ‘right hand’.

  255. [Ed. The truth is the truth. I am not afraid it will ever hurt this case. I encourage the other side to read what I write here. I am hoping we get to the truth and I print it as fast as it comes to me. I can’t get it out fast enough. It’s more about the truth for me than it is about winning the case. The Truth.]


    Maybe it’s time to take a break from this great education you’re giving us all. What you’re doing now is just pre-educating their lawyers of your every argument point, when you argue on here to counter what some posters say.

  256. The decision to even hear this case.

    Nine citizens with the power to decide or not to decide.

    Should they not decide to act now, than when?

    The idea that the natural born citizen is yet to be defined seems far fetched to me, it is defined. It clearly excludes all but one type of citizen.

    We have three branches of government.

    One has 535 members (and a tie breaker spare in reserve)

    One has 9 members

    One has only ONE member
    (with a spare in reserve) and is unique in its requirements.
    It is a position that requires absolute allegiance to our country and adherence to our constitution.
    It is reserved for the purest flavor of citizen.

    The American public delegates that power to represent us and we demand only those truly eligible for the offices that are sought.

    It is inconceivable to think that a SCOTUS would skip this important constitution question which will beg an answer until it is finally answered one way or the other.

  257. […] Barack Obama constitutionally incapable of assuming the office of the Presidency. One of their ilk, Leo Donofrio, went as far as to push a poorly-pled lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was […]

  258. Bridgette Says:


    I was reading through your blog. It won’t allow me to search so I don’t know if you are aware of this information. I apologize if it is duplicated elsewhere. The person that wrote it connected the gal that wrote it with the firm that Obama knew in Chicago. All the information below is from that site:

    “Found this on Lans forum. Looks like the Obama camp has been studying ways to change to Constitutional requirements for President for some time now

    If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”


    Click to access Herlihy.pdf

    “I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

    http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)

    In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama

    So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006.

    It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.”


    Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement.

    Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever.

    Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.


  259. [Ed. Yes. They corrected a mistake.]

    Hi Leo – me again. Quick question. The difference between the naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795 shows a clear distinction between “natural born” and “citizen.” Whereas the 1790 act conferred “natural born” status on children born offshore to American-Citizen parents – the 1795 act removes the term “natural born” and replaces it with “citizen.” Do you think this was done in an effort to correct a mistake in the 1790 act that could have possibly undermine the natural born citizen requirement in Article II Section 1?

  260. [Ed. I’ve been a lawyer since 1991.]

    Leo, you’re not a lawyer, are you?

  261. Adding to what Bridgette revealed, I would like to say the seemingly nefarious Congressman Barney Frank (one of the people behind our financial crisis) tried to change the Natural Born Citizen requirement before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives on July 24, 2000. It went nowhere because the Republicans were in charge then…..

  262. oops! I meant “possible reasons” why the app was denied — obviously I can’t read the Justice’s minds — I just think that you were asking for pretty momentous relief.

    Keep in mind that the 20th Amendment is pretty clear on what Congress is supposed to do in the event that they determine that the President-Elect is not qualified.

  263. The case has been denied

  264. FightforAmerica Says:

    Great article Leo. Maybe there is more to Obama’s mother that needs to be investigated. Mostly everyone has been digging in to his COLB and his father. “Hiding in plain site”, could actually be something on his mother. Is there proof of her birth, hospital records. And was she still an American citizen and did she at the time of Obama’s birth have dual citizenship. I have read a few articles that state that she might even still be alive.

  265. Mario from New Jersey Says:

    Now that the Supreme Court has denied the stay, what is the next step? Given the facts that we know about whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President, those who believe in this issue cannot just throw in the towel. Maybe the Supreme Court is telling us that we have to bring our case to a different branch of Government, one that can handle the political and social ramifications of this issue. There is still the Electoral College and Congress. Does anybody know what steps need to be taken to bring our case there and to hopefully stop this illegal election? We need to research the proper procedure to get the case there as soon as possible. The collective wisdom of all those Americans who believe in this issue will be immensely appreciated.

  266. […] Chester Arthur: Other than those born before the establishment of the United States of America, only US president who was born a British citizen. […]

  267. Mario from New Jersey Says:

    Following up on Petitio’s comment, I offer the following as to what the Twentieth Amendment provides in relevant part:

    “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.”

    I interpret this section to mean that you can still be “elected” to the Office of President but still fail to qualify for that office. Clearly, to qualify (to be eligible) for that office, Article II tells us, among other things, that the person has to be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, this issue is far from dead.

    Also, based on this article, should Obama not qualify for President, then Vice President elect Biden will act as President until a President shall have qualified.

    Wikipedia also states that “a]s a result of this amendment, if the election of President and/or Vice President ends up in the Congress because it could not be resolved by the Electoral College, the new Congress, not the old one, is the one that becomes involved.” If this statement is correct and if the Electoral College does not decide the issue of Obama’s qualification (eligibility), the new Congress would have to do so.

    The question then becomes how to present the proper application to the Electoral College and/or the new Congress on the issue of whether Obama qualifies (is eligible ) to be the next President of the United States.

    What do any of you think about this?

  268. A Natural Born Citizen Says:

    As someone who was born in the United Kingdom to two U.S. citizens, I take enormous offense at your suggestion that I (and others like me) am not a natural born citizen. The law of the United States clearly provides that U.S. citizenship attached to me from and at the moment of my birth, with absolutely no requirement that I take any additional action. One can either be a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen.

    [Ed. Warning, anybody who use the terms “United States law” “Clearly provides” and “Natural born citizen” in the same post will be BANNED…(that’s a joke…sort of0 ]

    I am a NBC. The fact that the United Kingdom also deems me to be a natural born citizen of that country is immaterial to my U.S. citizenship. I have no control over the UK’s laws, and they have no effect or control over U.S. laws.

    Imagine, for a moment that the France passed a law tomorrow stating that any person born in the former Louisiana Territory would hence forth be a natural born citizen of France. Would you suggest 40+ years from now that a person born in Louisiana was ineligible to run for president because he or she had dual citizenship? That is an absurd position, but no different from the one you propose here.

    The 14th Amendment states: “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.” If Obama was born in the United States, then he is a Citizen of the United States. Period. He is not a naturalized citizen, and must therefore be a natural born citizen. His father’s citizenship is immaterial. That he might also be a natural born citizen of another country is also immaterial. It only matters that he was born in the United States.

    Now, if it turns out he was not born in the United States, that changes things enormously, because at the time of his birth, his mother’s citizenship may not have granted him automatic U.S. citizenship. But so far, nobody has been able to come up with any real evidence that he wasn’t born here.

  269. […] father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice […]

  270. Michelle in Texas Says:

    I can also confirm that I’ve found no record of S. Ann Dunham’s death other than the Social Security Death Index.

  271. […] father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice […]

  272. Did they even have birth certificates at the time Chester Arthur was born? I know that a lot of those people were born at home, not in hospitals, and there were no birth certificates for a lot of them — my grandmother for one, and she was born in the late 1800’s.

  273. […] worried about them thinking he was born in Ireland (which was completely debunked).  I suggest you read this for more details and a much better […]

  274. A Natural Born Citizen Says:

    [Ed. Warning, anybody who use the terms “United States law” “Clearly provides” and “Natural born citizen” in the same post will be BANNED…(that’s a joke…sort of0 ]

    By “the law of the United States,” I was referring to U.S. Federal Law, as opposed to any state or local laws. 8 U.S.C. §1401 clearly provides (all you have to do is read it):

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:…(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;…”

    The plain meaning of those words is that from the moment of my birth to two U.S. citizen parents (both of whom had previously resided in the United States), I was a national and citizen of the United States. If there are only two types of citizens – those who are naturalized citizens, and those who are natural born citizens – then because I am not (under Federal law) a naturalized citizen, I must be a natural born citizen.

    Your argument against Obama being a natural born citizen under the meaning of the United States Constitution would also mean that I am not a ‘natural born citizen’. But it would also mean my son is not a ‘natural born citizen’. Although he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizens, the United Kingdom also recognizes him as a citizen of Great Britain – something none of us have any control over. If your position was adopted by the Supreme Court, then only my grandson (if I ever have one, and he is born in the U.S.) would be eligible to run for president. Do you really believe that the Founders intended to limit the presidency to those whose families had been in the country for at least three generations? If they had meant something that far reaching, surely they would have been a little bit more specific.

  275. Attorney friend Says:

    [Ed. The problem with your argument is that there were statutes making people like Arthur British citizens:

    “A later statute (12 Geo III c. 21), enacted in 1772, made general provision allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone were British.


    I don’t know if someone brought this up above but the problem with the Chester Arthur analogy is that Britain remained, at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, a “jus soli” country. Meaning, despite Chester Arthur’s father still being a citizen of Britain at the time of his birth, such birth abroad didn’t confer British citizenship upon Chester himself. Unlike Obama, whose could claim British citizenship through his father based upon the 1948 law Leo cited at the outset of this case, Chester never HAD dual citizenship to lie about. Such ‘jus sanguinis” law did not exist in 1829 or 1830…whichever year Chester was born. This Chester thing is just another weak attempt to convolute the principles and the history of the principles. Chester may have lied…but it wasn’t with regards to this “natural born citizen” controversy.

    Consider this excert I found in an article regarding migration and immigration:

    “In 18th century Europe jus soli was the dominant criterion, following feudal traditions which linked human beings to the lord who held the land where they were born. The French Revolution broke with this heritage and with the 1804 civil code reintroduced the ancient Roman custom of jus sanguinis, only to reintroduce elements of jus soli in 1889 for military reasons related to the draft. During the 19th century the jus sanguinis principle was adopted throughout Europe and then transplanted to its colonies. On the other hand, the British preserved their jus soli tradition and spread it through their own colonies, starting with the United States where it was later encoded in the Constitution. By the beginning of the 20th century, the process of nation-state formation and the associated codification effort were completed in Continental Europe. At the same time, the revolutionary phase was over in those countries that had been the subject of the earlier colonization era, and 19th century colonization had extended the process of transplantation of legal tradition to the rest of the world. Therefore, by the end of the period of interest, most countries had completed a slow process of adjustment of their legislation regarding citizenship acquisition, in response to a variety of largely exogenous impulses. We code countries on the basis of the kind of citizenship laws (i.e., jus soli vs. jus sanguinis) in place at the beginning of each decade. The data set that we compile for the 1870-1910 period, can be described as follows. Within Europe, the jus sanguinis model tends to dominate, but with several exceptions. Britain, as previously mentioned, always remains a jus soli country. And so does Portugal. Scandinavian countries, as well as the Netherlands, are late-comers that embrace the jus sanguinis legislation only towards the end of the 19th century. France, on the other hand, leads the introduction of jus sanguinis but switches to jus soli in 1889. Outside Europe, jus soli dominates not only in the former British colonies,3 but also in Latin America. Despite their civil law tradition, these latter of jus soli autocracies. Thus, our measure of migration policy differs from democracy. 2After World War II, with the decolonization phase and the collapse of the socialist system, citizenship laws have started a process of further adaptation, with a marked acceleration under the pressure of international migration. The evolution of citizenship laws in the 1950-2000 period is investigated by Bertocchi and Strozzi (2006).
    3British emigrants were actually in a special position when moving to countries belonging to the British Empire, such as Canada and Australia, since they were dual citizens of both Britain and Empire countries.
    (countries at independence chose jus soli as a way to break with the colonial political order and to prevent the metropoles from making legitimate claims on citizens born in the new countries.”

    Click to access bertocchi.pdf

    In my opionion, Obama is completely a “natural born citizen”. This case is more interesting with regards to McCain. Fortunately…he didn’t win. 🙂

  276. [ed. This was the subject of the supplemental brief filed in Cort’s case today. And it’s a relevant point. We just don’t know. Yet the ineligibility of Arthur taints everything he touched.

    Sorry if I don’t comment as much tonight on the posts. I was up all night writing a brief, drove to DC… got no sleep and am seriously exhausted. The level of discourse is really great, lots of serious arguments, reserach, ideas… and very little BS. Thanks to all.]


    We know that the author of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Horace Gray, was appointed by President Chester A. Arthur. The question on my lips is, with regard to Chester A. Arthur’s dual citizenship at birth, what did Horace Gray know, and when did he know it?

    The dissent to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, written by Chief Justice Fuller and concurred with by Justice Harlan, cited de Vattel thusly:

    “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

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

    Book I, c.19, § 212.”

    I have to imagine that it was mortifying in the extreme for justice Gray, knowledgeable of Arthur’s ‘secret’ as I am assuming (without specifically knowing) he was, to contemplate the possibility of the above-indicated passage from Vattel’s 1758 work being cited with approval in a decisive majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Can it be that Gray did whatever he had to do, including taking the lead in writing the majority opinion and bringing as many of his colleagues as possible to heel, to ensure that the Arthur-damning sentiments of de Vattel were forever banished to a dissenting opinion (if they are to be invoked at all)?

    Can it be that Horace Gray threw a federal case to save his patron’s legacy?

    To quote Fred Thompson from “Hunt for Red October”: “This business will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it!”


  277. Here is a nice re-post of yesterday’s Donofrio Arthur article


    There are two arguments by pro-Obama posters in the comments (interestingly, within two minutes of each other) that I thought you’d be interested in, for sword sharpening.

    1. an attempt at a sort of refutation before the fact on LD’s/your Arthur revelations:

    The dual-citizenship status of President Chester Arthur
    was known earlier than Donofrio’s report — see:


    This was observed to be due to the retroactivity of
    the 1870 version of the Naturalization Act, though
    discovery of papers from 1843 is certainly useful.

    [Ed. As per the Treay of 1783, the US didn’t recognize nemo potest exuere patriam so the naturalization papers are absolutely necessary. Furthermore, history has never recorded that Arthur was a British subject. It was alleged he was a British subject when a false scandal involving his birth records was aimed at him stating he was born in Ireland. He was actually born in Vermont. The relevance to this issue before the court is more to do with the fact that Arthur was alaways considered a US Citizen at birth for being born here, but nobody ever accused him of being a Brit because his father had not naturalized. nemo potest exuere patriam has never been recognized in the UNited States, it couldnt be. The Treay of 1783 established that all the colonists were United States citizens. In 1812 the Brits tried to suck us back in, back it didn’t work.

    Thanks for the head up. nemo potest exuere patriam might confuse some people (for example the poster) but it won’t confuse the SCOTUS]

    However, this hurts any dual-citizenship fancy as
    much as helping it, “legal” precedent or not.

    Dual-citizenship in light of the Donofrio/Wrotnowski
    assumption of Hawaiian birth is a non-starter, since
    it can only conflict with the single sentence in 8 USC 1405
    awarding citizenship at-birth to all Hawaiians after
    April 30, 1900 only in an extremely contrived way.

    It’s really hard to imagine the Supremes believing
    British law trumping precedents of American law
    about natural-born citizenship going back to 1790.

    Posted by: loquitur | Tuesday, December 09, 2008 at 02:17 AM

    2. an attempt at nay-saying on what it means for a Justice to distribute a case to the SCOTUS conference (5th down):

    The Supreme Court has a rule: a litigant may request a stay from the Justice for the circuit where their case arose. If it is denied, they can come back and ask another Justice of their choice. When that happens, the 2nd Justice always refers the matter to the court for conference, so they can get all 9 to agree on throwing it out and be done with it.

    [Ed. False. See my blog today showing two examples which prove this to be false.]

    If they ever get something they want to grant, they ALWAYS issue an order to the other side requesting opposition. No court would ever issue a stay without having first have heard from both sides.

    [Ed. False. They grant stays without requesting opposing briefs when time is of the essence. ]

    What say you?

  278. …but good night. ;-`

  279. Attorney Friend Says:

    [Ed. The problem with your argument is that there were statutes making people like Arthur British citizens:

    “A later statute (12 Geo III c. 21), enacted in 1772, made general provision allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone were British.”]

    Sure it and some other Acts “allowed” for the “naturalization” of children born abroad to British fathers (and/or parents); however, it wasn’t at birth that that they came about such citizenship automatically.

    It was merely retroactive to birth once applied for.

    [Ed. You’ve got this wrong. It is automatic. Citizenship was assumed upon birth. It’s well settled English law. Foreign born children of British subjects were deemed british at birth, not through naturalization.

    Therefore, at English common law foreign-born individuals could not become citizens through any procedure or ceremony. Some exceptions to this general principle existed in the common law, to recogonise the situation of children born on foreign soil to English (and after the Act of Union 1707, British) subjects. The earliest exception was the children of the King’s ambassadors, who acquired English citizenship even if not born in England. A later, broader, exception was enacted by legislation (25 Edw III st 1, 1350) to allow children born abroad to two English parents to be English. A later statute (12 Geo III c. 21), enacted in 1772, made general provision allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone were British.

    Generally then, there was no process by which a ‘foreigner’ not of British parents could become a British citizen. However, two procedures existed by which the individual could become a British subject with some of the rights of citizenship. Firstly, ‘naturalisation’ granted all the legal rights of citizenship except political rights (e.g. holding office). Naturalisation required an act of parliament be passed. Alternatively, denization allowed a person to gain the rights of citizenship other than political rights. Denization was granted by letters patent, and was granted by the monarch as an exercise of royal prerogative. ]


    Those wishing to benefit under these acts were also required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to the king. Most also had to take communion (which was to be documented by witnesses) unless they were Jewish.

    Chester Arthur, arguably, could have sought British citizenry by applying for it,

    [Ed. Wrong for all of the reasons stated above.]

    though it is likely that his father’s “British” legiance, after having spent many years in the US NOT in service to the king,

    [Ed. The Arthur’s were still connected to Canada and it appears William Arthur had returned there for work intermittently and Chester’s mother’s family lived there… these were border people. This may have alot to do with why William didn’t naturalize until 1843. HIs allegiance to the US was not settled until years after Chester Arthur was born.]

    would have likely rendered such petition to the King moot (especially if he was seeking a British inheritance). Maybe if Arthur had moved there he would have gotten it…as they seemed quite willing to assimilate protestants from around the world. Regardless…this was a naturalization PROCESS versus a right by birth. Interestingly, these naturalized citizens were denied Kingship or from becoming members of Parliament (duh, they weren’t born there!).

    I found this pretty good link (below) titled “BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW AND THE HISTORY OF NATURALISATION” which concludes:

    “The confinement of acquisition of nationality by descent to descent in the male line to the second generation was largely fortuitous”


    This case was interesting from a legal point of view and I appreciate the opportunity to be challenged by it. I’ve learned a lot. I completely disagree with your assertions and case. I think you just made a conclusion and then attempted to back into legal arguments by mixing up “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” principles where “jus soli” was the overriding principle of the day. Your case appears quite appealling to the neo-conservatives based upon where we find ourselves today but legally, it’s a fallacy. I agree that perhaps a Constitutional Amendment would be nice and I agree that the SCOTUS has the right to interpret the clause. I just think what you believe the intent of the NBC requirement, that there is some distinction between “natural-born citizens born on US Soil” and “native born citizens born on US soil to 1 (or more) non-citizens”, has so little basis in common law that it’s preposterous as it pertains to Obama. An amendment to the constitution would be nice to clarify this issue for situations like John McCain, Romney, Chester Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., etc. which actually posed a greater question of eligibility and the ability of Congress to legislate around the NBC requirement.

    Good luck. Appears you are gonna need a runner runner.

  280. [Ed. He lied anout facts as to his father’s history… during the campaign. He was hiding something. That’s the purpose of the lie.]

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

    First Arthur did not cover up the fact that his father was Irish, and he never claimed that his father was naturalized before Arthur was born. To say that “he wouldn’t have been on the ticket” had his father’s citizenship status been known is pure speculation. The fact that there was a furor over WHERE Arthur was born argues that his father’s status WAS known. If investigators at the time believed that Arthur was the son of two US Citizens, then why would his being born in Canada matter? Rather than say the investigators filed to discover the father’s citizenship status, it makes more sense that they didn’t care. After all, most people believe (and I think rightly) that natural-born just means “born a citizen”. And however you spin Wong Arthur was born a citizen.

  281. […] A. Arthur, the 21st US President was rumored to be born in Canada. Recent research argues that in fact he was not a natural born citizen due to a different reason, that he was dual […]

  282. […] than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents […]

  283. […] than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents […]

  284. […] than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents […]

  285. [Ed. Bridgette, I would love to have the transcripted notes.Sent you an email.]


    I read through the information on Chester at the Boston Eagle. It was so interesting. Anyway, I also looked up natural born and native born as searches and there was lots of information. I don’t know if you were aware that this was discussed from 1859 – 1900. They were difficult to read so I typed them. If your sister can look them up and print them you might find them interesting. I can email what I have done already, if you send an email to me.

    In the articles, they give citations and names of justices who were giving their their definitions. Following are the ones I completed, but there were more.

    Native Born for Presidency and VP July 26, 1859
    Native Born Citizen goes to Canada, lives and Returns – Alien July 19, 1891
    Natural born Citizen Feb. 26, 1888
    Natural Born Citizen is eligible to Office of Pres. July 15, 1859
    Natural born citizen May 27, 1888 born on soil, not citizen made by law
    Office of President – Natural Born Citizen Feb. 26, 1888
    ****President, Natural Born Citizen Feb. 26, 1888 GREAT ONE
    Senator Saxton, Republican June 14, 1894 If native born
    Theft of Presidency in 1875 – Oct. 10 1879
    American citizen? Child born on high seas under American Flag yes, foreign country, no Dec. 16, 1894
    Native Born can’t vote Oct. 7, 1900
    Death to President, succession, jump over one not natural born Jan. 19, 1896
    Mr. Breckinridge, Dem. Native Born Citizen Sept. 6, 1860

    You might not want to post this information, as I don’t want to give ammunition to the wrong side.

    These are a couple of them (snipets):

    Natural Born Citizen is eligible for the office of President July 15, 1859

    …The document, which we find at length in the organ at Washington, defines naturalization to include “all the rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to a native born citizen, in their full extent, with the single qualification that under the Constitution, no person except a natural-born citizen is eligible to the office of President.”

    Natural born citizen May 27, 1888 Born on soil, not citizen made by law

    Office of President
    Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to It?

    Only a natural born citizen is eligible to the Presidency of the United States. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil, within the allegiance of the United States, and not one who is made a citizen by law.

    Natural born Citizen Feb. 26, 1888

    Arguments on Either Side of the Question
    What is the Constitutional Meaning of the Word “Natural” Opinions of the Hon. William N. Evarts, ?.P. Morse, Kent, Story and Others.

    At the beginning of the government of the United States it is clear that a person not born on the soil, a person not a natural born citizen, could be President of the United States, provided he was 35 years of age, and had resided in the country for fourteen years. Commentators have been very shy of giving this phrase, “natural born citizen,” a definition. So we find it passed by as if every person knew what it meant. The question sent to the Eagle by “Cox” is just this: “What does a natural born citizen mean?” The State Department at Washington calls this a “hypothetical case;” hence it may be inferred that the Secretary of State has not arrived at any conclusion or adopted any standard of belief regarding what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”

    In the EAGLE of November 27, 1887, the same ground was taken and we cited the statement made in the Journal of Commerce of May 28, 18??. In the same paper of October 17, 1886 we find that the editor cited as an authority one of Daniel Webster’s favorites, Paschai, the highest authority in the interpretration of the United States Constitution, who defines “a natural born citizen” as one “not made by law or otherwise but born.” “The Constitution does not make the citizens, it is in fact, made by them. It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural borne born and provides by law for the naturalization of such as are foreign born. It should be observed here, says Mr. David M. Stone, that “every writer of any note who has undertaken to discuss the subject has divided all who are entitled to be called citizens into two classes…

    Just drop me a note if you want the ones I already transcribed. Otherwise, if you want to print them, I searched on native born, and natural born. The dates are above also. When I printed them they were so tiny I couldn’t read them, thus my typing.

    There are so many of us praying for these cases to be heard. All our Senators, Representatives, SOS, electors, Justices have taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Will they do so is the question.

    You are up for the award of Patriot of the Year! Thanks for doing what all of us would like to do.

  286. […] we dropped by the Library of Congress and took a look at the index of papers for Chester Arthur. (Please see previous report.) Compared to most of the other Presidents, there’s barely anything on Chester.  The index […]

  287. I live in Vermont and I have an old map that shows a picture of Chester Arthur and claims he was born here in a log cabin.

    If blog comments allowed uploads, I could upload a digital photo of this old map.

    Please sign this petition to demand that all political candidates should be invited to every debate and forum.

    In 2008, the MAJORITY of candidates were excluded from the majority of debates and forums.

    If all 2008 candidates had been invited to all debates and forums, then most likely Mr. Obama would NOT have been elected.


  288. […] States was born to anything other than two United States citizens and on United States soil, except Chester A. Arthur and history shows he lied and misled his peers and the newspapers of the time abou… In other words, Chester Arthur intentionally and successfully concealed the fact that he was not […]

  289. […] A. Arthur wasn’t a legitimate president eitherm, a “usurper” no less. This appears on Leo C. Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen site. Donofrio says: Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might […]

  290. […] father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice […]

  291. Anonymous Lurker Says:

    Another valid argument is that since Arthur was a lawyer and politician at the time the 14th amendment was debated and ratified, that his later actions of concealment and subterfuge show that even HE recognized the 14th amendment didn’t trump or override Article II.

  292. […] There is another conundrum to consider though.  According to recently uncovered information (see: Historical Breakthrough ), there was another usurper before him!  According to the information just uncovered, Chester […]

  293. […] another thing, namely ‘the real conspiracy they missed’ which is his and your current argument. HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH Natura… Also, no ‘precedent’ has been set towards the desired conclusion you are proffering–having […]

  294. Malvina automatically passed on her US citizenship to Chester Arthur at birth — something that Obama’s mother could not. Obama, therefore, is the first and only President where none of his parents automatically conferred their US citizenship to their son.

    [Ed. The issue is NBC status, not just citizen status.]

  295. It has to be noted that in August of 2008 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution declaring John McCain a natural born citizen because both of his parents were U.S. citizens and he was born to a U.S. military serviceman on a U.S. possession, a U.S. military base, in Panama. The irony of this is that it is reported that Obama signed this resolution as a Senator.

  296. Given two New York state court decisions, Lynch v. Clarke (1844) and Munro v. Merchant (1858), both saying quite directly that children of alien parents born in the United States are “natural born citizens”, I find it hard to credit the claim that Chester Arthur “knew” that he knew that he wasn’t a natural born citizen.

    The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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 only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    The New York Legal Observer

  297. […] By the way, Chester Arthur was the original usurper; a long article about his duplicity is here. […]

  298. […] Historical breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur concealed he was a British subject – Natural Born Citizen – Donofrio […]

  299. […] we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to […]

  300. theaternews Says:

    New York Alternative Theater Circles are abuzz about Dr. Larry Myers’
    new play “Reincarnation of President Chester A. Arthur”
    Perhaps that overlooked portly statesman will return to settle all the aforementioned controversy!
    The bloggers, scholars & historians who wrote here are a marvelous bunch of detectives & devotees. god Bless them. If anyone can add to this hurlyburly it’s New York’s dazzler dramatist LARRY MYERS!
    His take will be unique, idiosyncratic & spellbinding.

  301. […] we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to […]

  302. […] the frenzy over whether Barack Obama was a “natural born citizen, I came across this, FWIW: Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.***Presidents of the United States: Resource Guides***Debunking the […]

  303. paralegalnm Says:

    Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid producing his original 1961 birth registration. This voids the prima facie value of the well-publicized C.O.L.B.

    There is a way to apply for specific information, or vital statistics missing from the C.O.L.B., such as birth hospital, witnesses, etc.

    Lacking such information is probative of a 338-5 certificate, and a Kenyan birth.

    Here is the law and some links.

    If the courts will not approve Discovery and Production to allow a plaintiff to see a certified copy of the 1961 birth certificate, under HRS 338-14.3 an application can be made for specific vital statistics in lieu of the actual birth certificate.

    The application is limited by HRS 338-18.* A lawyer representing someone such as Alan Keyes or military personnel, or someone like Jerome Corsi researching a book or article . . . or a graduate student thesis on Barack Obama . . . someone with a ‘tangible’ interest . . . can apply for that information. It may be that the Republican ad hoc congressional caucus would qualify as a government agency or organization.

    §338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.

    Subject to the requirements of section 338-18,* the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
    A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
    Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
    The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
    Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]


    *338-18 (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
    (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
    (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities; [Republican ad hoc caucus]
    (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
    (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
    (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [Biographer/researcher, such as Jerome Corsi?][L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

    L.A. Daneman

    [Ed. Never saw this before. It’s worth a try. Although they’ve sealed all of this in Hawaii I believe. Which shows you that Hawaii is going to have his back on this and that’s one hell of a protector all things considered.]

  304. paralegalnm Says:

    Through the constitution and US Sup Ct holdings, congress has jurisdiction in writing and reviewing naturalization law.

    This is why I am suggesting a handful of Republican congressmen form an Ad Hoc Caucus to study presidential Article 2 eligibility confirmation, and perhaps current ignoring of ‘jurisdiction’ in the 14th Amendment and 8 USC 1401.

    It is my opinion that a valid congressional caucus would be a valid applicant under HRS 338-18 to request vital statistics in lieu of a certified copy of the 1961 birth registration, per 338-14.3.

    338-18 also qualifies individual attorneys, but it seems the judicial system has allowed an injunction sealing the record, barring Discovery and Production in an ongoing lawsuit.

    [Ed. In case you didnt notice, Congress wasn’t interested. Not one person form House or Senate raised an objection. But in quo warranto they have authorized a jury trial on the merits of all issues of fact.]

  305. Mr. Donofrio,

    I am writing this comment to ask you to reconsider, in the light of new information, some statements made on this web site in regard to the late President Chester A. Arthur.

    It has been said that 1) Chester A. Arthur knew he was ineligible for the office of Vice President when he ran in 1880 and 2) that statements made by Arthur so confused his opponents, that they were misdirected away from examining the naturalization status of his father.

    A prior (1844) statement from the Supreme Court of New York in the case of Lynch v. Clarke states that the contemporary opinion both of the legal community and of the public at large was that Chester A. Arthur was eligible to be president. If true, one must infer from the Court’s statement that Arthur also believed that he was eligible.

    [Ed. You completely twist the case to make it seem as if it the decision was written with Arthur in mind when Chester was only 15 at he time of the case. Nice try but it wont fly. The Court in Lynch v. Clark didn’t have a crystal ball to see that Arthur would run for President. That’s a ridiculous assertion.]

    Vice-chancellor Sandford, speaking for the Court said:

    Upon principle therefore I can entertain no doubt but that by the law of the United States every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States whatever were the situation of his parents is a natural born citizen…the general understanding of the legal profession and the universal impression of the public mind so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it …

    [Ed. An opinion in a State of New York case is in no way controlling on national law. If this were true then there would be no national law because if you study the law you will see that the states differ in so many ways on so many different issues. For example, wiretap laws… many states allow wiretaps if only one of the participants is aware of the tap… other states make that a crime. There is wild variance between state laws. Just as there is wild variance of opinion as to POTUS eligibility. Chester Arthur, being a lawyer, knew he could never base his eligibility on a State of NY case from 1844… it’s patently absurd to think that the Lynch case would have had any bearing at all on whether he was eligible to be President. Arthur would have known that Minor vs Happerset – the controlling SCOTUS case at the time of Arthur’s run specificially stated that doubt exists as to whether those born in the US as dual nationals are natural born citizens.

    This is clearly the big problem Arthur faced – the SCOTUS language in Minor would have caused him great stress and doubt as to his eligibility. So he covered it up by lying to the people through the Brooklyn Eagle. Hinman, whether by purpose or accident, simply helped Chester Arthur by focussing attention on where he was born while creating a smokescreen as to when his father was naturalized. ]

    Second, A. P. Hinman, Arthur’s arch foe and proponent of the “born in Canada” theory, included in his own 1884 book, How a British Subject became President of the United States, a letter he received from Senator Bayard in response to his query in early 1861:

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    Page 89.

    [Ed. There’s nothing in that quote that even suses the name “Chester Arthur”. There’s nothing in that quote which states that a naturalized citizen can become a native. Bayard is using the word “Native” just as Vattel used it – to describe the “natives or natural born citizens” of a country – those who are born here to parents who are citizens.]

    It appears to me that Hinman, by raising the question about a father becoming naturalized and its effect on his child, knew of Arthur’s father’s naturalization status, and at the very least, he was considering such a scenario. He was not misdirected so far as to ignore the possibility.

    Why did Hinman, a New York lawyer, not raise this issue in his book, prepared to attack Arthur in the 1884 election? Perhaps because he too held the general opinion of the legal community of New York that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States whatever were the situation of his parents is a natural born citizen.

    [Ed. Or perhpas Hinman simply assumed, based on the lies told by Arthur, that Arthur’s father naturalized before Arthur was born. Had that been the case, then Arthur, having been born in Vermont, would have been a nbc. But Hinman based his argument, much like Berg today, on the allegation that Arthur was born abroad. So in his mind he never needed to go any further.]

    Thank you for your consideration.

  306. Mr. Daneman suggests applying for a Verification in lieu of a certified copy. I sent in my application and money order for one of those last December and didn’t get it. Perhaps an attorney might press more vigorously than I did.

    However, the essential flaw in that tactic is that you can only verify what you already know, and not discover any new information. So the only facts you could get would be what is on the COLB. At best all one could do is verify that the COLB is not a forgery, which anybody with any sense has already concluded.

  307. paralegalnm Says:

    The C.O.L.B. is a printout from a computerized database.

    The database of birth statistics can be more extensive than what is required/tagged on the C.O.L.B. Examples of birth data not on the C.O.L.B. are delivering doctor, signatiures, birth weight, and licensed birthing facility. You can create a database on your own computer and a linked document. You choose in creating the document what specific database blocks are transferred to the document.

    The 17.8 data in lieu of the birth certificate will have more information than the C.O.L.B., but still will protect the birth certificate document.

    Back in the 70’s, a person with intentions of creating an unlawful alternate identity would browse state records or grave stones for a birth year close to his, but of a child who died young or at birth. A certified birth certificate would then be requested under the right name, but the perpetrator’s address. The eventual end result would be a fake, but official ID.

    That is why birth certificates are protected. Also, it takes physical effort and time to produce a certified and sealed copy of a birth certificate. The C.O.L.B. just takes the push of a couple buttons on a PC and printer.

    The birth certificate, or data in lieu of, are sufficient proof of Obama’s ‘native’ U.S. citizenship. The signature of a witnessing doctor is the proof. Without it, Obama is merely a statutory/naturalization law citizen at birth born in Kenya out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen.

    The place of birth, or jus solis, do not determine ‘natural born’ or not . . . only ‘native born’ or not ‘native born.’ A natural born citizen requires both blood allegiances through jus sanguinis . . . place of birth is secondary as was noted in the 1790 (“as natural born”) and 1795 Acts (“citizen”).

    McCain was natural born with two U.S. citizens and barred from any foreign soil right of citizenship, because his parents were active military.

    [Ed. McCain was not and never will be a natural born citizen of the US. He was born in Colon Panama… ]

  308. paralegalnm Says:

    Question: Did Panama law provide John McCain Panamanian nationality at birth, due to his being born in Colon?

    [Ed. Not sure about Panamanian law.]

  309. […] When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur’s) birth. If “natural born citizen” means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough — Chester Arthur) […]

  310. […] In Section 6, Tonchen relies on the Leo Donofrio’s slander of the late president Chester A. Arthur by saying: When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur’s) birth. If “natural born citizen” means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough — Chester Arthur). […]


  312. […] he defrauded his way into the White House citing spurious factual and/or legal claims, e.g,: HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH Na… There was only one case that I recall where someone who considered running for the POTUS was […]

  313. Joss Brown Says:

    Hi Leo, I just read the article again and have a question. It says in the wikipedia article on the history of British nationality law that citizenship via patrilineal ius sanguinis outside of the British dominion was only codified in the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, i.e. after Arthur was born. I guess it’s fair to assume that this form of citizenship conferment already existed before that time. But are there sources to back this up? (Maybe it’s in here somewhere—or in another article on Arthur—, but I couldn’t find it.)

  314. paralegalnm Says:

    May I make two suggestions.

    1) The value of jus sanguinis over solis was influenced by the extent of the British Empire. The British were in foreign lands, but had various degrees of jurisdiction. Obama’s nationality jus sanguinis was initially B.E.A. with an option to become a British subject after Kenyan Independence. However, that is a moot point because Obama, Sr. abandoned the family and lost statutory status as ‘parent’ under both British and U.S. law. In re Natural Born Citizenship, Obama was born with dual nationality and thus ineligible to run for, or be, president.

    2) For a discussion of the older British laws, a Yale Law Review article by Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizenship Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty’ Jill A. Pryor, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988) makes pertinent citations.

    I don’t agree with Pryor’s ‘liberal’ conclusions, but the older law is interesting. Personally, I would stick with the 1948 British Nationality Act as a reference. It is complex enough without bringing in older law.

  315. […] a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president's […]

    [Ed. Had the people known Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth they wouldn’t have allowed him to become VP. But Arthur lied about his parents heritage in various interviews with The Brooklyn Eagle.]

  316. […] a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president’s […]

  317. Kurt Carlson Says:

    Check out this article by John Curran (AP) about Chester Arthur:


    They don’t address what the definition of natural born citizen is though, or discuss the citizenship of Chester Arthur’s parents.

  318. […] not become a U.S. citizen until Chester’s 13th birthday.  Donofrio broke the revelation on his website in December […]

  319. […] Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December […]

  320. […] Money Floods Into Obama Campaign 4- Obama’s gamble: possession nine tenths of the l 5- Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was a British Subject at Birth 6- Joseph Biden: Liar, […]

  321. […] Money Floods Into Obama Campaign 4- Obama’s gamble: possession nine tenths of the l 5- Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was a British Subject at Birth 6- Joseph Biden: Liar, […]

  322. […] Money Floods Into Obama Campaign 4- Obama’s gamble: possession nine tenths of the l 5- Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was a British Subject at Birth 6- Joseph Biden: Liar, […]

  323. […] the exception of Chester A. Arthur, who hid from the public the fact that his father was a British citizen when he was born, every single President and every single Vice President born after the ratification of the […]

  324. Leo:

    I have a series of ground-breaking videos that I have released in advance of a book I’ve been writing for the past two years.

    I menton them because, in the first video, Chapter 1, Part 1, I show where Obama’s Fight The Smears stated that Obama is “a native-born citizen,” and not a natural-born one. From there, it documents the outright fraud committed in plain sight by Factcheck, Politifact, Hawaii’s DOH, and the Obama Campaign/Administration regarding his birth narrative.

    It was the intention of these groups to fradulently redefine the eligiblity issue by changing the definition of natural-born citizen to native-born citizen where all that Obama needed to do was to prove he was born in Hawaii – which he did with a forged birth certificate.

    I agree that Obama was a British subject, and dual citizen, at birth, and that disqualifies him as eligible for President, but there are still about 45% of the US population who believe these frauds and their definition of natural-born.

    It is this reason that I have dedicated myself to exposing them for the frauds they are, and eliminating them as credible sources removes all of the basis for believing that Obama was born in Hawaii and/or was, and still is, eligible to be President.

    If you want to knock down a building, knock out the foundation first.

  325. Thinks changing by the time. I hope in the future much better.

  326. The constitution says you have to be 34 years of age, living the the USA for fourteen consecutive years and be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the signing of the constitution to be President. The definition of a citizen, according to the constitution by later amendments and various treaties say that you have to be born on American soil. That being said, Chester Arthur was a native son and the argument is nonsense.

    ed. the Constitution itself bears witness to the fact that a “citizen” is not the same as a “natural born Citizen”… citizens may be reps or senators, but only a nbc may be President… your point it moot. – Leo


  328. […] a candidate for president has usurped the office via fraud.  Chester Arthur was the first. Historical Breakthrough – Proof:  Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth.  Arthur usurped the office via […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: