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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

As to John McCain they would have found this:

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

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


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

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


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

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

What have we come to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

From the 14th Amendment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

Now look at “footnote 10”:

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

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

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

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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



  1. Wow, Leo. In my opinion, this is a very well presented and detailed account of this issue to date. Thank you very much for posting this! I’ve been waiting for just such a posting that I could share with people that so simply and fully explains the issue with solid references to back it up. Bravo!

  2. Awesome write up Leo!!! We could never express how thankful we are to you for all of your hard work and Love of the Country. You have worked tirelessly to continue to bring this issue to light. Many are waking up to the realities of this case. We can only pray that the Justices will also understand how important this issue is not only for this Election, but for future elections as well. You Sir, are a True Patriot…Thank you from the bottom of my heart. God Bless You Leo….

  3. [Ed. The precedent doesn’t have to be set by the Court, precedent is also set by history. Obama was British/Kenyan at birth.]

    Obama serving as president does not set any LEGAL precedent that could be relied upon by anyone down the road. The court hasn’t ruled on the merits. All of the lawsuits pending have clear jurisdictional flaws that will result in the supreme court never deciding any of them on the merits. No precedent will be set.

  4. Slam dunk Leo!

    The next question is the manner in which the Electoral College is directed by the Court to proceed or not to proceed. (It would seem that Hillary Clinton now becomes the front-runner.)

  5. To require candidates be born on American soil only and entirely an American Citizen is to constructively leverage for the best overall opportunity for all future generations; that a sitting president of the states will always be one who arises naturally from the generational balance and national culture of the time. This too is a buffer… and a form of deliberate and intended representative control; a hysteresis that fixes the past to the future along a unbroken continuum of evolving national being.

    Sorry I can’t describe it better than that. Our nation’s founders thought in terms of nature and biology and saw and understood the role of nature and natural forces. They were systems thinkers, philosophically very different from the legalists and technicians that dominate our society today, so much so, the difference is lost on many well educated and successful people.

    Certainly there’s a better way to say this; I can’t do any better. The basic point is so very important. The Framers weren’t just lyrically screwing around with the concept of “Natural Born Citizen.” They saw it as a critical control in an intended representative filtering mechanism meant to protect the inherent vulnerability and elemental nature of the presidency’s role in our national governmental schema.

  6. Free America Says:

    Once again Leo, you simply amaze us. I’m shocked that you keep finding more information such as this to strengthen your case. Now if SCOTUS will only give you a chance. Prayers and thoughts are with you continuously.

  7. TRUTH DETECTOR: McCain Electors MUST vote for Hillary! Says:

    Get the word out to ALL McCain electors:

    If Barack Obama continues to evade the eligibility question, then on Dec. 15th all of the McCain electors should protest by voting for Hillary Clinton. If they stick to voting for McCain, then Obama will obviously become President since he has more than enough electors.

    BUT, if word gets out that the McCain electors will vote for Hillary for President, then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we can get enough Democratic electors to defect and vote for Hillary instead. That way, the integrity of the Constitution will be protected, and Republicans will show that they put principle above all else. (Plus, a President Hillary Clinton will be less effective if she wins under these circumstances)

    This would PROVE that Republicans place principle above politics. Hillary Clinton is no doubt a natural-born citizen, and conservatives will prove their strict adherence to and love of the Constitution by supporting an eligible candidate for office (even though we all disagree with her on the issues, of course).

    Please consider supporting this option. Thank you.

  8. Lori Stinger Says:

    Excellent summary of the tragic experience we have all suffered by the main stream media. It has been a travesty inflicted on American citizens and upon all peoples throughout the world!

    Your story and experience deserves to be told in honesty and made available to all mankind, for the truths and history it contains!

    You have fought a long hard battle for justice and I know it will not go unrewarded! I believe you have been an instrument of inspiration in by which God has worked truths of inalienable rights of man in this great Nation founded under God

    I believe the future will write and expound on this era of American history and you dear Leo, will be called a true and great Patriot to join the ranks of those great men that have gone before us!

    You have my deepest respect!


  9. It sets historical precedent certainly.

    [Ed. On this we agree.]

    It does not set legal precedent. It can’t. The Supreme Court can only rule on what comes before it, and only where it has jurisdiction.

    [Ed. If a candidate is not Constitutionally eligible, then SCOTUS does in fact have jurisdiction. The case has been before the Court in two instances now. If it denies both, future candidates born as dual nationals will certainly have a stronger argument that the precedent is both legal and historical.]

    Even when the court has jurisdiction and simply declines to review a case, it is entirely free to take up the issue later. Declining to take up the earlier case is not precedent that it must do so again.

    Let me know if you’d like me to cite authority for this.

  10. I hope SCOTUS makes their decision based on the U.S. Constitution & the definition of Natural Born Citizen that has already been established rather than using any type of political agenda. This case is going to cause a great disturbance in this country if it is decided by SCOTUS that Obama is ineligible, but the long term repercussions of allowing him to take office will make the U.S. Constitution a worthless document. I say thanks to Leo & Cort & to anyone & everyone who took the time & effort to research & in some way assist in this situation.
    No matter what the outcome decided by the court thanks to all of you who believe in the law & the Founding Fathers binding documents.

  11. If a NJ citizen wanted to continue this argument in the event Cort’s case is denied, how would you suggest that NJ citizen go about it? I assume a new set of defendants would be in place, as the electors are charged with determining eligibility.

    Thanks so much…you’ve got the stuff the Framers were made of!

  12. I’ll add this:

    As you know, the Supreme Court is also free to change its mind at any later date. Supreme Court precedent is not binding on the Supreme Court.

    Of course, the Court frequently chooses to be “bound” by earlier decisions (ie stare decisis), but it is not obliged to. It does so out of a need to create consistency in rulings. It has, however, overruled older cases many many many times and can do so whenever it chooses.

    Not that this matters because Obama becoming president will not be legal precedent in the first place.

    [Ed. Will be precedent. A dual national at birth will have been President. It sets a precedent.]

  13. Let just believe that at the end of day (hopefully it will be tomorrow) our selfish and usurping “Fourth Estate” will get a crushing blow from the real constitutional force above it the “Third Estate”.

  14. [Ed. There’s no doubt that the readers of my blogs have helped me learn quite a bit. I hope I have thanked them properly.]


    My respect for your unwavering efforts to maintain the sanctity of our Constitution and for your succinct analysis of the weighty issues surrounding a ‘natural born citizen’ knows no bounds; but, I have coined my own phrase this morning to describe those dedicated citizens whom you have inspired, and who have so unselfishly responded with innumerable hours of research to find and to provide additional information and support for your position(s) regarding our Constitution.

    I will always think of them as “Leo’s Librarians,” and we all owe them a debt of gratitude we cannot repay.

  15. The dual nationalities/dual loyalties issue underlying the “natural born citizen” clause is not merely academic, it IS an actual issue which HAS MANIFESTED HERE — that is, Obama actively campaigned for Odinga in Kenya (while a US Senator).

  16. If nothing else, Leo, I think you should be putting all of this into some kind of book form with an enticing title about the election of 2008. You know there will be lots of stuff written. Yours would be unique and perhaps get you on CSpan book program! There’s a lot of newly spoken historical info I’m sure they would be interested in. You and Cort could co-author it.


    it seems you have the same misunderstood anger as myself and when i called a local supposed conservative talk show to get this topic covered i was yelled at and told i was a wacko nut job. then i listened to him degrade me and belittle me to the next dozen callers for my willingness to have the gall to question or bring up such nonesense as this and that we lost and we need to accept it and move on. which shows how nobody has backbone and or the media is in fear of the fairness doctrine, because they all say in fairness to the fairness doctrine our next guest has the opposing veiw. i stated before this is very simple ukc then kenyan, then indo by adoption, then to pakistan on indo citizenship and the trail goes on. you are great for all the work you have done and so are the blogers on this matter who have done research. and if this does not get heard and obama and mccain and calero removed from the election process, then the next step will be to start a grass roots effort to get out the facts to christian americans that we have some seriuos issues with the country that we love and knew. and we had better try to get some qualified people in position to run for office and just maybe you might ought to consider this for your self leo. [Ed. Not really interested in that.]

  18. Leo, by your argument and comments related to the 14th amendment, it seems that we’ve been granting citizenship, incorrectly, to anyone just ‘born’ in the United States, i.e. to children of foreign students.

    Was there later legislation which allowed this specifically, or have we simply allowed the interpretation to drift?

  19. […] have also included Leo Donofrio’s recent blog posting on how the 14th Amendment framers and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have come to view […]

  20. [Ed. The first three pages are the most fun to read. 🙂 ]

    Dear Mr. Donofrio,
    I was elated to read the results of your fabulous research as first pointed out to you by “John Boy.” This all but seals the deal. Now, please TAKE a DEEP BREATH; you’ve earned it. I can personally appreciate your frustration with all the opposition and name-calling you’ve been subjected to; it’s uncalled for! I have admired how you have kept your cool and not critized those who have been unkind to you, but the first three pages of this posting are not quite up to the stellar example you have set. So, again, just take a deep breath and all will be well. P.S. There is no need to post this since it really is only for your eyes. Thank you!! for all you have done for all Americans and for those yet unborn. Warmly & w/Deep Admiration, Robare

  21. just to add suppose iran says president obama i have your real birth certificate….the one you didn’t show the american people… NOW THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR ME……. natural born and verifiable is the only way to SAFELY start a government of the people by the people and for the people………good luck cort…leo… GOOD LUCK 12 12 2008…GOD BLESS AMERICA/

  22. [Ed. If the will of Americans is to circumvent the Constitution, the only way to do that legally is through an Amendment, nit a fraudulent election.]

    This, like all the other attempts at undoing the will of Americans, will be tossed aside without so much as a comment by the highest courts in the land.
    I have never read so much “defensive attitude” on the part of a spearhead as I have in these cases.
    Obama WILL get the votes needed to become the President-Elect on Monday.
    Obama WILL become president in January.
    These will become the facts of the matter. Like them (here) or not.
    And all, BUT a few people with a defensive posture trying to justify their narcissistic attitude (like Alan Keyes), will be applauding wildly.

  23. Mr. Donofrio:

    Just a wonderful explanation and should be posted throughout our land for all to read.

    Could anyone please send this to Michael Savage, Rush, Sean and Rick Roberts. Would love to hear what all would say to the facts.

    Thank you again and God Bless

  24. Dear Leo,
    OK, you got me! I, too, did love those first three pages! For those who might be offended, well, **** ’em if they can’t take a joke … and after all this IS serious business, Very Serious. Less than twenty-four hours to go, and counting, till The Supremes get to demo just how supreme they truly are; I can’t wait. Robare

  25. Thanks for posting this, I’ve been following your case for a while now (and am now following Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State) and this is a very clear and factual explanation of your argument with related documentation. I think it’s unfortunate and frustrating that this issue has been lumped in with the birth certificate questions because as soon as people hear that they get dismissive, and as you note the birth certificate is irrelevant – being born in Hawaii alone is not enough to satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement. As you say, it’s not about Obama (or McCain or any particular candidate), it’s about upholding the Constitution.

    Thanks for all your hard work on this, I hope that the SC will decide to hear the Wrotnowski case.

  26. I appreciate your work and commend you for your persistence in the face of so many challenges, including accusations that seem outright slanderous. I would like to respectfully challenge you on this point: I believe it is POSSIBLE that both you and Berg are correct. Let me start by stating that I strongly believe your position is correct and that it at least deserves consideration by the Supreme Court. As to Berg? As you said, who isn’t a little crazy. I wish he were someone else. However, I can’t say that I am convinced, as you are, that a fraudulent certificate was not posted. I don’t know if it is fraudulent or not. It just boggles my mind why he doesn’t clear up the birth certificate issue in a manner other than an internet posting. I have been reading through many blogs and sure, there are outrageous comments that boggle the mind as well. But many rational people merely want him to show his certificate and get on with things. It is my understanding that McCain did. Then we are left with only the arguments that you make and should, make.

    If someone were able to prove that Obama is ineligible because he was born in Hawaii, that wouldn’t make your case any less relevant, although it would effectively end it if this were to happen before a decision on yours is made (if the Court even takes it).

    I don’t want to get into a Berg bashing or Berg supporting tirade. I think that he has raised a legitimate question, at least regarding standing: who has the right to challenge eligibility? If he does, then he should have his case heard. If he does, maybe someone with more credibility could advance the case successfully.

    Both of you may be correct. Both of you need standing, but you need only that to proceed (if the Court should desire to entertain your case). Berg (and others) need standing and a hearing to present evidence. In your case, the facts are not in dispute. Does Obama’s not responding to Berg mean that he is trying to maintain his integrity and not answer what he would seem to call fallacious charges? You say so. I don’t, not because I am convinced he wasn’t born in Hawaii but because he didn’t have the integrity that McCain has (if he indeed did cooperate with submitting his certificate when challenged). Ironically, Obama should sue Berg but Berg’s defense would be truth, and to prove that, the certificate would come into evidence.

    Thank you for considering what I have to say.

  27. because he was NOT born in Hawaii (sorry)


    am i a little to forward in my comments? just am frustrated. can’t stand what has happened to our constitution.

  29. Crystal clear! Thank you for posting this article! I maintain an attitude of prayer and hopefulness that the truth about Obama will be finally revealed!God bless you, Leo.

  30. “…and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in.”

    Oh…that’s rich. Gotta love it when a professional gets on a good riff.

    You’re right, of course. I’ve searched far and wide these past couple of months, and darned if I can find anything approaching a cogent, coherent argument for why the 14th Amendment must be viewed as having worked the kind of “watering-down” of the term natural born citizen that is necessary to permit us to conclude that the candidates offered up by the major political parties this year were POTUS-eligible.

    Even in view of all you’ve done so far, Leo, this piece is a great and timely follow up. Should SCOTUS decide to engage in this controversy, missives like this shall certainly bring many skeptical (but otherwise unbiased) minds onboard with the position you and Cort are advancing.

    Bravissimo, Donofrio!


    P.S.: Now that you’ve put all this in one place, I am even more convinced that Arthur-appointed Justice Horace Gray was on a mission to find that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the 14th amendment.

    To my mind, Horace Gray’s was a gambit that could play itself out in no fewer than two steps if it was to avoid raising too many eyebrows. First, with the Wong Kim Ark decision penned by Gray himself, SCOTUS found an individual born of two non-citizens to be a native born citizen of the United States. The next step would be for a subsequent SCOTUS decision taken in the context of a presidential eligibility dispute that: 1) relies heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis to uphold the relevant holding of Wong Kim Ark, and 2) holds that the adoption of the 14th Amendment automatically worked a change to the Article II, section 1 POTUS qualifications such that everyone who meet the minimum qualifications for citizenship under the 14th Amendment (i.e, born in the U.S. to parents who kind of feel like sticking around a while) is, ipso facto, a “natural born citizen”. This despite the fact that the framers used the term “natural born citizen” with full knowledge of the de Vattel’s authoritative 1758 work defining the term to specifically include those who are born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country, and to specificaly exclude those born of parents whose citizenship lies elsewhere.

    The net result will be that anyone born in the United States other than those born to a parent who is a foreign ambassador, prince, king, president, prime minister, etc., will be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. This would presumably include any child born to a mother or father (or both) who is a suitably low-ranked foreign national.

    The fact that children born of parents in this last category can presumably be whisked away to a foreign land for a charming childhood suffused with joyous foreign indoctrination apparently wouldn’t cause [Ed.] to bat an eye. Provided their accent is charming enough, and their chops are sufficiently sharp, they would only need to return to the U.S. at, say, the age of 26 (still a U.S. citizen), park their can for 14 years or so before running for, winning, and assuming the office of POTUS (presumeably while still a dual citizen), free and clear of any legal challenge to their legitimacy.

    What a country….

  31. Leo & Cort (& readers of this website):

    I thought you’d be interested in the response I received from GN, a retired conservative prosecutor to my e-mail about how the book, THE LAW OF NATIONS, defined “natural-born citizen.” This is what GN wrote:

    “I agree with everything in your email. Here’s why I think it will make absolutely no difference.

    1. The Supreme Court does not even follow the U.S. Constitution, much less a book written by a Frenchman in 1758.

    2. “The fact is the law is what five justices say it is. Any five justices. Never mind the Constitution, never mind Congress. Five justices voting together can determine what the law is, and their decision is not subject to question” . . . When that five-to-four split repeats over time, most often with the same justices voting together on each side of the issue, one may reasonably infer that the different interpretations must come from some personal philosophy or political ideology, not from any reasonable interpretation of the law. Or the Constitution. Each justice of the Supreme Court has his/her own bias and political philosophy. It shows in their work.

    3. The justices will do what they want to do. They will not be constrained by the law or the Constitution. In my opinion, they will not want to precipitate a constitutional crisis by blocking Obama’s inauguration.

    And think about the riots that would follow Obama’s disqualification. With most of our National Guard in Iraq, I believe the police quickly would be overwhelmed and the country would sink into anarchy and chaos.

    Obviously different people have different views. I will be content to let this issue go through the Court and live with whatever happens.”

  32. Leo, please do not publish this.
    I think I have a case against this elector. This is what he believes NBC means. Please tell me how to proceed. I am beside myself.

    [Ed. all of the answers are on this blog… I don’t have time to repeat it all. The letter is not accurate and there is no law or case which defines a nbc as somebody who was born in the US. The letter is bogus to the extreme.]

    This is his reply to my asking for his rationale:

    Thank you for your email and your concern. As you know, a natural born citizen
    means the individual and not the parents of the individual. The constitution
    states that a natural born citizen must be born on American soil, but the
    constitution is silent on the nationality of the individuals parents and does that
    impact that particular child’s nationality.

    Any child born in America or on a military installation overseas are considered a
    natural born citizen.

    Mr. Obama meets the qualifications based on his birth in Hawaii. The Supreme
    Court of the United States dismissed the case this past week, and I am confident
    that their ability to interpret the constitution is far more advanced than my three
    semesters of law school.

    We have many immigrants that come to our country each year. If they have a
    child on American soil, that makes their child automatically a citizen of our

    Only one president was the son of two immigrant parents and that was Andrew

    Five presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow
    Wilson, Herbert Hoover all had just one immigrant parent each. President-elect
    Obama will be the sixth.

    I do hope that this information will put your concerns at ease. Thank you for
    your continued support of our democracy and your involvement in the process.

    Happy Holidays to you and your family.

  33. [Ed. Except for one thing, our Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual directly contradicts the treatise. In the case of the Obama situation, there is no law which contradicts the treatise. McCain was born under the jurisdiction of Panama as well as US. Furthermore, the DOS FAM clearly says:

    7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United
    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

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

    Notice the title of the relevant chapter: “Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf ]

    Excellent presentation Leo ! However, I think you needed to add why McCain would be eligible according to the “Law of Nations”. The following is also included in the book Justice Scalia cited:

    Ҥ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

    For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory. ”

    McCain’s parents were both U.S. citizens at his birth……..

  34. roy bleckert Says:

    i was your last caller with you and Steve on Eds show , if the COLB is correct Barak does not get his citizenship from his father, in the Berg suit he states that the mother had to be 19 to transfer her citizenship to Barak , she was only 18, throw in Bergs indonesian school document that says he was a indonesian citizen , that Barak may have been adopted by Soetoro was he ever even a U.S. citizen ? , I was also on with Cort and the Pastor and gave them a example of why Barak has concerns for being commander and chief of the military , had to do with Trumam and WWII and they liked my agreed with my thought on this you might want to ask Cort about it,LEO and crew you are doing a great job researching all of this you have my sincere thanks for doing this, remember everyone it is all about the constitution

  35. If Robare’s point is that the wording of the criticism might be more effective if slightly more gentle, I agree.

    But the criticism is entirely earned and entirely just. The damage done to our nation and our future by this dishonest reporting is an evil that cannot be ignored. Avoiding rightful criticism of evil is, in effect, sanction of the evil.

  36. No matter how liberal or conservative a Supreme Court Justice is in their heart, the argument put forth by Cort and yourself Leo is crystal clear.

    The Founders sought to protect us from ourselves and ensure that our Republic would remain strong and vibrant forever. National governments around the world come and go for they do not have a strong foundation built by their forefathers.

    Everyone who serves in the military or for our government takes an oath that includes swearing to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies be they foreign or domestic” and it took a retired lawyer from New Jersey and a business man from Connecticut to answer this call. It makes me ashamed it came to this, but proud in my heart that the spirit of the Minutemen still lives on.

    The case before the Supreme Court is so clear and well presented, they can rule on the case without ever hearing an argument. There can be no dissenting opinions with Obama providing everything they needed to know. If there were ever a gray area of what a “Natural Born Citizen” was, you and Cort have provided the precedent that will stand the test of time.

    True Patriots will understand, if they be Democrat or Republican, the country will be stronger for knowing of this fraud.

    Others who do not support our guiding principles will display their true allegiances after an announcement in our favor. But we will stand strong.

    It has been said, that God is not addressed in our Constitution, but I beg to differ. Mortal men alone could not have put together this foundation for our Nation without some outside help.

  37. The Castellan Says:

    When creating a blog on politics, is it legal to pull stories from the main stream media and post them on the blog?

  38. Leo, this is a fantastic read. Although I am not a US citizen, this issue will affect the entire world. Destabilization or lack of faith in the Presidency and the laws passed during a wrongful administration will affect the entire world. Obama may well end up being the most patriotic person in the world, but it’s not about him. It’s about confidence in the office of the President and the US in general. When your own President doesn’t follow his own country’s highest law, he loses credibility when trying to advance his agenda or promote any kind of foreign policy.

  39. And here I thought history is boring!!

    If every part of the Constitution were explained like this one; and made required reading of every citizen and citizen-to-be, we probably wouldn’t be in the multi-faceted gigantic mess that is going on right now.

    Leo, what a fantastic wonderful job! Plus you make it so easy to read and understand. Will you be giving an exam when this is over? 🙂

  40. Mr. Donofrio, I accept that your motives are pure. This is, was, and always will be, a constitutional issue of eligibility for the office of POTUS.

    Your statement above, “IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN – IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT”, is absolutely true, but I will add, with British citizenship and Obama’s support for Odinga in Kenya, to me, the “who comes next” is here right now.

  41. Neil Johnson Says:

    [Ed. Sure, native born to “parents, who are citizens”. It’s all one sentence.]

    There always seems to be an ambiguity somewhere. In the Citizens and natives quote, there is this phrase:

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. I hope I am not misreading this, but this seems to make “native” and “natural-born” synonymous.

    [Ed. You are misreading it. Read the whole sentence as it defines his definition of natives. ie a correct quote would also be “The natives… are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. ]

    The fightthesmears website says Obama is a “native citizen of the United States”. I always thought that a native citizen is one who is born in the U.S. but is not a natural born citizen.

    Could someone clarify this for me?

  42. Kevin Smith Says:

    Mr. Donofrio,

    I have written on here once before and I thank you for replying to my post. I did read your brief and I understand your frustration at being lumped in with the “Obama Haters”. You did speak highly of the candidates. Whether anyone likes them or their policies is irrelevant to your lawsuit. I do have problems with your brief as it was written in a hurry and I did not think it was very strong. My disagreements with you on this issue stem, not from my support of Obama, but from reading the sources you provide for your argument and my research. I do not think you are a wing nut like Berg or any other names that you may have been called since filing this lawsuit. Any names you were called before the lawsuit is fair game. J/K

    When I talk about your lawsuit, I always make clear that you are not demanding any documents from anyone nor do you believe Obama or McCain were born anywhere other than where they said they were born. I do think you have some strong supporters who have done research on this issue and share your interpretation of this area of the Constitution. Many, however, may be distancing themselves from this issue because of the stigma that accompanies it.

    The problem is some of the people who support you. You must realize that some of your supporters are wing nuts and they have not read your brief nor do they care enough to do independent research on this topic. They take your theory of this issue and look no further because it provides a basis for their already prominent dislike of President-Elect Obama. A prayer vigil in front of the SCOTUS? The constant references to Obama as the usurper? Even this site provides comments from people claiming you are doing God’s work. The conspiracy theory take on this is not coming from you, but from the people who follow you. I think you have done well in distancing yourself from them as you cannot control the thoughts or motivations of people, but you will be lumped together with them. Your lawsuit provides some legitimacy to the wing nuts, i.e. they are not just Obama haters, they are Constitutionalists now. Anyone claiming to be a Constitutionalist has been tainted by the wing nuts on this issue, also. Lumping people in with the extremists is a common tool used in politics and this case is no different.

    What is happening is no different than the situation with the faithful Ann Coulter followers some years back. A person would be hard pressed to find any references to Sen. Joe McCarthy as a true patriot until Ann wrote her book, Treason, in which she used shoddy research methods and innuendo along with out of context quotes to show how Joe McCarthy was a sentinel fighting off the Communist/Pinko/Liberal/Democrats of the era. Now, websites are available to show the true hero that was Joe McCarthy. Original research? No, that would ruin the drama. She provided a defense to conservatives who have had to deal with the black eye of McCarthyism, rightly or wrongly, for decades. Your brief is providing a rational, yet incorrect in my opinion, argument for people who simply hate Obama and nothing more. The press will focus on them because they are more fun to watch than two attorneys argue legal issues. Watching some of these folks is like train wreck TV and it does bring in viewers. Now and for years after, people will claim Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of the evidence put in front of them and a SCOTUS opinion on the issue will not matter. You know as well as I that conspiracy theorists do not accept anything other than their theory of an issue. Examples: 9/11, Kennedy Assassination, Project Blue Book (UFOs), etc.

    Although McCain’s birthplace is a big part of your brief, he is now an unimportant issue for Obama haters as he lost the election and will probably not run again. If he is found ineligible, big deal. Many would not be here if the election was still going on.

    The recent filing of Affidavits in the Berg lawsuit shows the moon bat mentality of some involved with him. Your case will probably not be reported outside of the Burg lawsuit in the MSM and, yes, that is unfair. Did you really expect things to be different? You are a smart person and do not deserve to put in the same category as Berg, but the haters that follow you on this issue have prevented that from happening. Good luck on the other lawsuit and try to stay above the muck.

  43. Leo said:

    “The precedent doesn’t have to be set by the Court, precedent is also set by history.”

    Current example:

    “Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Clinton’s nomination from running afoul of the Constitution”

  44. Allochtoon Says:

    Dear Leo Donofrio,


    Two grammatical quibbles in paragraph 6: “thou dost” (‘doth’ is third person singular), “me thinks” sounds better to me, but I’m not sure “me thinks so” is impossible.

    With all good wishes for tomorrow!


  45. American Patriot Says:


    I for one don’t think you need to calm down: your anger is rigteous and well merited by your critics and the MSM! People often forget that righteous anger is a virtue, and has its place and merits.

    This is by far the clearest explanation for laymen and a great introduction to the issue for anyone common to your blog. I recommend to post a link to it in a prominent place, so that all new comers can find it.

    I sure hope that some members of Congress take your counsel and object to the candidiacy of Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama on Jan. 6th, if they are to show themselves as much a patriot as Leo, Cort, Berg, Orly, and all the others who are bringing lawsuits on constitutional principles in the matter of the recent election.

  46. Leo,
    Bravo and thank you for putting everything so cohesively and in balance. I have printed it out so that I can show everyone I talk to exactly why and how this whole “Natural Born Citizen” thing works, because no matter how I have tried, most people come back to the thing about his being a Citizen by birth and they just refuse to see beyond that.

    Thanks for your Patriotism and for standing in there to get the words across to those that should know and uphold that piece of paper that our Country is/was based upon, and I appreciate all the effort you have put into our Country and our Freedom and the basis of this Constitution.

    I wish for you and for the USA all the best on this coming Friday. I just hope that SCOTUS sees the truth for what it really is and how it will affect the forthcioming future of America.

  47. What a wonderful summation! Thank you so much for the exemplary way you are handling this case, for your courage and dogged persistence in pursuing the right to honor and uphold the Constitution, and for doing it as a scholar and a gentleman.

    I look forward to your every new posting and read it avidly, because your site is head and shoulders above the many that address the issue of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. Your posts are articulately presented and thoroughly researched, and the comments reflect a high level of education in your readers.

    As an ex-lawyer, I appreciate your love of detail and tireless efforts to convey your precise meaning. Most lay people don’t understand the extreme significance that the tiniest mis-statement can have in the legal arena, especially at this level of argument involving the brilliant legal minds of the highest Court in the land.

    I greatly admire the respect you demonstrate toward the Supreme Court Justices and their decisions, even when they rejected the application on which you had worked so hard and invested so much emotional energy.

    It frustrates me to read comments on other sites that suggest the Supreme Court Justices are somehow complicit in esconcing Obama in the White House. The writers obviously don’t understand that the Court may in fact be champing at the bit to address this issue, but has its hands tied until being presented with an application that is completely accurate and correct procedurally, as well as being filed by a person with standing. And in a case of first impression like this, even figuring out who has standing has proved to be a challenge. Journalists and pundits simply run with the idea that if an application is rejected, that an adverse decision was made on the merits. Nonsense… like a lot of other things they print and say!

    In any case, many, many thanks, Leo for your courage, determination, and for the long hours and effort you are putting forth. We are all rooting for you and will be sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for news of yours and Cort’s case. All our thoughts and best wishes and prayers are with you!

  48. Not only was Obama born with allegiance to Kenya, but Obama has also acted on his allegiance. He remained a citizen until he was after the American age of maturity (18) and he has very actively participated in Kenyan politics. Obama raised close to $1 million dollars for Ralia Odinga to run for office. After he lost, he sought advice from Obama and then soon after Odinga’s muslim supporters went on a killing spree against Christians. Obama was aware that Odinga signed an agreement with the Muslims of Kenyan to instate sharia law. You can look on youtube to find the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Odinga which states that Odinga would not cooperate with the U.S. regarding the war on terror and he would intstate sharia law.

    I would say that Obama has too much acutal allgegiance to Kenya in addition to what he was born with.

  49. You can also search an Worldnet Daily for a copy of emails between Obama and Odinga. There are pictures of Obama campaigning for Odinga also. Yet another story that the MSM had completely coverd up.

  50. I suspect you may know about this:

    The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty
    Jill A. Pryor


  51. [Ed. Incorrect. I can’t go to Italy and be accepted as a legal Citizen without taking steps to become one. Believe me, the process is incredibly difficult to make happen. You have to get old papers like BCs of grandparents and apostiles…and then you have to apply. You don’t just march in there and get welcomed as a citizen. Being eligible to be a Citizen is vastly different than being born to a Father who is a citizen of another country which makes you automatically a citizen of that country. ie, if your father wants to take you home to his country, you will be welcomed as a citizen, can get a passport etc. Eligibility does not mean the same thing as being a citizen. PLEASE DONT USE BOLD FACE. I RESERVE IT FOR MYSELF SO THE READERS KNOW IT’S ME. ]

    Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son,

    There are nations out there that do not recognize the naturalization of their citizens by other nations. Italy, for example, considers anyone born of someone Italian, with no limitation on generations to also be a citizen of Italy, unless one of those generations has affirmatively renounced his right to Italian citizenship.

    That means, Leo, that if we follow your rule that if another country has a hold over you, if they could assert jurisdiction, you cannot be natural born then Rudy Giuliani might not be able to be President because Italy might have a claim on him!

    This is the problem with your logic, Leo. The logic of “no foreign power can assert jurisdiction” cannot be limited to those who are born of non-naturalized citizens, because there are countries that do not recognize denaturalization. There will always be people who are born to citizens in the United States who other countries claim as their citizens – at least until you convince ALL other countries to get rid of jus sanguis!

  52. roy bleckert Says:

    [Ed. Interesting write up but my inquiry to the SOS was on October 22, five days before I started the litigation not one month before.]

    Leo check this out http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-161263

  53. “I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4] ” This statement seals the deal for ” Citizen” (not “natural-born”) John McCain, who was born in Panama, on a military base. This is equal application of the law to these candidates, and not just obama haters, phreaks, fanatics, fringe nuts, etc. You’ve done a brilliant work on behalf of the US Constitution and the People of America. Thanks to heroes like you and Cort, patriotism is alive and well in the USA. I pray that God, through His Blessed Mother Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, whose feast day is tomorrow, SCOTUS will take the case and grant success to you and Cort. God Bless you.

  54. Leo. Years ago I was told by a recently retired law enforcement officer to throw away my computers, get rid of all my bank accounts and credit cards, and transfer my investments into gold. He was a sailor, as I am, and at the time, I have to admit, I thought he was a freak of some sort. I remember waving to him as he left the dock. That was 12 years ago. Well, sometimes words and warnings don’t mean much until life moves a little further down the road. As it turns out, he may have been one of the wisest men I’ve ever known.

  55. Great stuff and very clear and concise as usual! Thanks Leo and hang in there. Perhaps there is a chance that at least some of the justices will see this from the point of view it that the framers intended. Scalia may be the biggest ally!


  56. Leo,
    I truly hope that you will write a book entitled “Natural Born Citizen” regardless of the outcome of this suit with the SC. A book would reach a wider audience (particularly if it included the intrigue of Chester Arthur and Justice Gray) and potentially become a best seller. This might help even more people realize how we’ve all been duped.

    You write extremely well, and I bet you could land a book contract in minutes.

  57. Hi Leo,

    Being just full of p… and vinegar myself, I loved your post about the MSM. I think you needed to do it, not just to vent some of your frustration and rightful anger at those propagandists (really, now, we need to stop pulling punches and just call them for what they are, as you have also mentioned). Far as I am concerned, they can also be considered scofflaws. Well, let’s continue to hope and pray that the SC Justices will hear Cort’s, Berg’s, Keyes’ or any other pertinent case on this issue and do it posthaste!

    I am not ready yet to hold a funeral for our U.S. Constitution in front of the SC steps, but time is of the essence here and the Justices are the only ones now who can provide guidance to the Electoral College. My prayer is that they issue a stay/injuction and grant certiorari on Cort’s case that they should be looking at tomorrow.

    Someone earlier brought up the question: How do we know that a law clerk will present a case as submitted? Excuse my naivete’ but I just never thought a clerk would have the power to sabotage a case. I skimmed through that article on the issue also, and was blown away by the possibility that politics could be used to sway any SC action. What feedback does a plaintiff get, besides the docket info, that their complete case was forwarded? Anyone know?

  58. Leo, I truly believe they are writing the ruling and opinions at this moment, so there will not be the need for a public trial. It will come up for a vote on Friday and announced when they have security in place around the Nation, maybe on Sunday.

    Berg’s case was left lingering so Obama would have the opportunity to respond to the court and when he chose not to respond, it confirmed Cort’s case.

    There is also an unconfirmed rumor flowing around the government, the naturalization, passport and security clearance records of five individuals were delivered under seal to the SC prior to the 5 December conference. No names are known of whose records they are or what they concern.

    Everyone signs a release of information statement to the government, when they apply for these services from the government.

  59. Is the argument about “Natural Law” sure to be considered? Since you obviously can’t point that out directly in your filing or brief anymore is there anyway to make sure that piece of evidence is brought to the judges attention?

  60. As a former Hillary Clinton supporter and a fan of Sarah Palin’s, I can relate to your vent. I’ve been called a racist more than once over the past year simply because that’s the only reason some people think you are not an Obama supporter. Been called a few other things also.

    I cannot see how the SCOTUS can deny this case. It is so clear. He is not a natural born citizen.

    We have a candle lighting group set-up for these cases at gratefulness.org:

    Thanks once again for all of your hard work. You are a blessing to our country.

  61. Joe E. SHeldon Says:

    By all means Leo and Cort – if you can’t work this discourse into an amended action submitted to the court (since it would be invaluable to have on record) then PLEASE include it in the oral arguments which I think will soon evolve.

  62. Civil Rights Act of 1866. Matches the 14th Amendment as written, the discussion of what the 14th meant, and the entire legal history. Subject to the jusisdiction means not subject to any foreign power as in the civil rights act.

    Civil Rights Act of 1866
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

  63. [Ed. It’s very relevant in that if a person doesn’t reach the level of Citizen, how can they be a natural born citizen? Furthermore, if you go back before the Constitution and read “The Law of Nations” you will witness the definition which is aligned with the Framers of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, three terms were debated as requirement for POTUS by the Framers back when they were writing the original Constitution.

    -Citizen was discussed and thrown out
    – Native born citizen was discussed and thrown out
    – Natural born citizen was chosen ]

    Interesting analysis, but I’m curious why you focused on the 14th Amendment to such a large degree when it was ratified 80 years after the constitution was signed. The Supreme Court often points out that later-enacted laws have no bearing on the legislative intent behind a prior-enacted law. In other words, the debate over the 14th Amendment doesn’t tell us anything about what the drafters of the Constitution intended by the words “natural born citizen.” Do you think the better analysis would be to focus on the Constitution’s drafters’ actual intent at the time rather than commentary made by other people decades later?

  64. [Ed. Dealt with the Op Ed piece in this thread….

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/donofrio-not-involved-with-national-press-club-event-on-dec-8-2008/#comment-1674 ]

    Leo, as you point out, the Obama “Fourth Estate” media virtually never argues on law, that is, with ONE EXCEPTION which I was able to find, appearing at OpEdNews — http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Barack-Obama-Natural-Bo-by-Hargrove-081207-817.html. Since it is the ONLY attempt at a countering legal argument I’ve ever seen (beyond mocking what you say), I treasure it. In case OpEdNews now removes their posting because of this comment, in a nutshell their position was 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
    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.”

    OpEdNews 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.

    Leo, I then concluded in a follow-up comment to your site: “if that’s all they got, your case is a slam dunk!”

    I do note that you subsequently elected to respond to their points — shot em all down — as follows:

    “1. 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?

    “2. The framers couldn’t have set the requirement back further than 14 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… 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.

    b. 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.”

    Leo, perhaps Team Obama has more or better arguments. However, considering your discussion/position has been all over the internet — available to lawyers and constitutional scholars — the lack of any further legal response is telling.

  65. [Ed. 🙂 ]

    Thanks Leo Some humor. (HUMOR ONLY editor can delete) I am trying to think out of the box. If we left some microbes on the Mars rover and it evolves into a being (Hopefully more intelligent then earthlings). Then since they were born on US soil (or a ship at sea) would they be eligible for president if they are 35 year of age or will SCOTUS have to decide if the framers meant earth years of Martian years.

  66. Will Brown Says:

    [Ed. Thank you for your service to the Country.]


    I’ve read every word on this and your previous blogs, but didn’t want to comment while you were busy with your filing and Curt’s. You are a Patriot in the finest sense of the word. You have my eternal gratitude no matter how this turns out.

    Will Brown
    Col., USMCR (Ret)
    Raleigh, NC

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

    Herein lies the problem for me.
    If no legal compulsion exists after a publicity admitted status outside of the understood definition of the Constitution and privacy rights preempt the right of the public to know then any ineligible candidate can obtain this office without consequence.

    The citizens of the United states are forced to witness the seating of an ineligible candidate and allow them to become an usurper due to the lack of an enforcement provision in the eligibility verification?

    If no ruling can be obtained by a court to resolve this matter the American people are left wondering if the Constitution has been transformed into a mirage?

    All three men named in your suit would have to take the Oath of Office swearing to uphold the Constitution, accepting the position of President would violate this vow knowing they are not qualified.

    If this question remains unanswered the legitimacy of the whole Constitution does to, as I see it.

    [Ed. Not true. The vehicle was always available – somthing akin to a writ of mandamus vs. your secretary of state where you live. No lower court judge through me out for lack of standing.]

  68. [Ed. Thank you JCD. I appreciate the compliment.]


    Thank you for clarifying matters for me and others in this most compelling post. I must say, that I am most impressed and equally amused by you closing:

    “it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in…”

    I hereby rescind my comments in the previous thread concerning 7FAM1131.9. I will to admit, that one learns something new everyday. I considered myself a fairly educated and informed individual. However, “hats off” to you for furthering my education and acumen.

    Also to commenter “willem.” You sir, have a most gifted tongue. Your:

    “a hysteresis that fixes the past to the future along a unbroken continuum of evolving national being.”

    was simply priceless. You must be either an EE, physicist or both. I can certainly appreciate your analogy. In my view, it precisely “fitting.”

    Today, we live is such a “literalist” society, that most have forgotten the “power of the symbol.” Most today, including many a Ph.D, simply do not know how to read and comprehend history in full and proper context. Too many today, unfortunately, are educated “technocrats,” and lack the constitute “liberal arts” (classical curriculum) necessary to be a fully educated adult. Again, unfortunately, this is not by accident. A cursory reading of John Taylor Gatto shows the student, that this is certainly by “design.”

  69. Many thanks for your efforts in bringing this truth to light.

  70. Thanks Leo. I have been following this topic for months, and I am clearly not a conspiracy theorist or a crazy. So, what if the supreme court chooses not to hear the case? In my humble opinion, this seems like a real scam and Obama… [Ed. I snipped cause I couldnt verify that part of your post…]should know that his qualifications may be questionable. A major question for me (and maybe everyone else) is – what application does one have to fill out to be listed on the ballot for a presidential election? Is there a checkbox that one has to mark that says “Natural-born citizen?” If so, who is required to follow up on that?

    I know most jobs in the US today that require any sort of security or clearance requires a somewhat detailed FBI background check, and personal reference follow up. Does each state or the federal goverment have any background check before giving that position to someone who is lying about their background and qualifications???

    Best of Luck – I am following your efforts and praying for you. I hope that we have some people in the upper-ranks with a little backbone to fully investigate this matter.

  71. [Ed. They haven’t turned away from it yet. My case was inferior to Cort’s as to the brief and procedure. As to the merits, the issue is the same. I am relieved that history won’t turn on the brief in my case. I was suffering from sleep deprivation when I wrote it and also had to get it to SCOTUS by Nov. 3. I had about 12 hours sleep that whole week while battling it out in two State court actions. Cort’s brief is so much better. Doesn’t mean it will make something happen, but at least I can rest knowing that a truly solid brief is before the Honorable Court, something I am proud for the world to read, interpret and understand as to each necessary step… mine was seriously lacking scholarship and the Cort brief is not perfect, but it’s certainly more than sufficient for the task at hand. ]

    It saddens me that our supreme court has turned away from such a simply stated arguement. If we can not look to the supreme court for justice where can we look? I think we need more people like yourself in the position of up holding the constitution. There is so much red tape its disgusting. Hopefully with all of the news lately someone on the scotus will realize our country in dire need of direction and the constitution is the gps master map of our country. Best of luck leo and please consider politics in your future you would have my vote for sure.

  72. [Ed. Good studd Zapem//]

    Here’s two more findings that demonstrate how Vattel’s the “Law of Nations” influenced early America:

    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.”
    {–Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775}

    “This [previous work on the law of nations], says a writer, is evidently rather an introduction than a system; and it served only to excite a desire to see it continued with equal perspicuity and elegance. The honor of this task was reserved for the great Vattel, whose work is entitled to the highest admiration!”
    {–James Duane, Mayor and Chief Judge of New York City, August 1784}

  73. Leo,
    Thank you for your great write-up. Any honest person can see your reasoning and knows that you are not coming from a partisan angle. The media has become a propaganda machine. It will take people turning off their TV’s and not buying newspapers and then the media will get the message. This has already started happening because the media is making itself irrelevant.

    The last line in “The Law of Nations” quote states the whole issue at hand beautifully:

    “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.”

    Anyone who loves Americas understands how profound this statement is and how important it is that our Commander in Chief is a natural born citizen.

  74. Another AWESOME WRITTEN blog article!!!
    It could not be any clearer in my mind now what NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means. I have seen mail come back from Congressman, Senators, and Governors who do not understand the difference between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. I hope those that are our voices wake up and learn before it is too late!

    Thank you Leo Donofrio for explaining so clearly.

  75. Mario from New Jersey Says:

    I wanted to share with Mr. Donofrio and others the following from a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on August 1, 1938, Perkins v. Perkins, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938). The Supreme Court did affirm the decision. The language that I quote is from the Court of Appeals and not from the Supreme Court:

    “The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:

    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”

    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said:

    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil.”1

    But this was not the common law.2 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.3

    The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in the passage of the Civil Rights Act (Rev.St. § 1992, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1). The act provided that:

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14, declaring:

    “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.”

    Page 411

    As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U. S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op. Attys. Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op. Attys. Gen. 394.”

    This language is interesting because it gives us an understanding of the basis for citizenship, a basis tied to a child’s place of birth or the nationality of the child’s parents. The language also makes reference to the phrase “natural born citizen.” But in using the term, the Appeals Court did say that a person “born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen.” In other words, just being born on U.S. soil was not enough. The child also needed to be in the allegiance of a State of the U.S. A question that we must ask ourselves is what does in the allegiance of a State of the U.S. mean. I submit that such a status can only apply to the nationality of the child’s parents, for there can be no other possible factor impacting the status of a new born baby.

    What is strange is that the Perkins court, when stating the facts of the controversy, said that Ms. Elg was born in New York City. The court also found that her father and mother were born in Sweden, came to America, and that her father naturalized before Ms. Elg was born. Ms. Elg’s mother then took her back to Sweden. Her father also later came to Sweden and then renounced his U.S. citizenship and once again became a Swedish citizen. When Ms. Elg became of majority age, she wanted to come back to the U.S. and assert her U.S. citizenship. What is interesting is that, while the court said that Ms. Elg was a “natural born citizen,” it made no finding as to whether her mother also naturalized in America at any time. The court said that when Ms. Elg enter the U.S. , immigration officials admitted her as a “natural born citizen.”

    [Ed. Mario… Elg was a nbc at the time of her birth. The Father naturalized in 1906. Federal law in effect From 1790 to 1922 deemed “the wife was automatically naturalized when citizenship was granted to her husband; a separate filing was not required.” http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/ogle.html Elg was born in the US to two parents who were both US citizens. So she was correctly held to be a natural born citizen.]

    Several years later, immigration service told her that she was an illegal alien and threatened her with deportation. Ms. Elg maintained that she was a U.S. citizen. The question became whether she lost that citizenship because of her father renouncing his U.S. citizenship or whether she retained it because she was born a U.S. citizen. Under these facts, the court stated that Ms. Elg was a “natural born citizen.” It found that Ms. Elg did not do anything during her age of majority which showed that she was renouncing her U.S. citizenship. We have to understand that the court was not deciding the issue of whether Ms. Elg was just a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen.” The court did not make any reference to the question of whether Ms. Elg’s mother ever naturalized in the U.S. But the court did use the term “natural born citizen” loosely. What is important is that the Supreme Court in its opinion affirming the Appeals Court also found that Ms. Elg was a citizen of the United States, but did not say that she was a “natural born citizen.” The Supreme Court also did not question whether Ms. Elg’s mother ever naturalized in the U.S.

    One other point that I wanted to share with you regards the Fourteenth Amendment. As you know, it says: “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.” I believe that this Amendment provides a clue into what “natural born Citizen means.” Putting aside the debate as to what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, the Amendment tells us that if you are born in the United States or naturalized there, and subject to its jurisdiction, you are a U.S. citizen. The amendment uses the word “Citizen.” In other word even a naturalized person is also a citizen, just as one who is born on U.S. soil. But we know that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. Hence, there must be a difference between the meaning of “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” If there were no difference, a naturalized person could maintain that he or she is a Citizen of the U.S. under the Fourteenth Amendment and being a Citizen is eligible to be President. But we would not accept that. Hence, the difference between the two terms must exist. In conclusion, all the case law and arguments as to what a “Citizen” is or is not do not adequately answer the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” These arguments only go to the question of what is a “citizen.”

    Mr. Donofrio is not saying that Obama is not a Citizen of the United States and he is correct in not so arguing, assuming that we may receive credible and complete confirmation that he was born in Hawaii. Rather, he is saying that even if he is a “Citizen” of the U.S. (because he was born in Hawaii), he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution. This is the heart and soul of Mr. Donofrio’s argument. The difference between the two terms, if there is any, has yet to be determined by our Supreme Court. Leo, good luck to you and Cort tomorrow.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    Jamesburg, New Jersey

  76. Nice to see that Mr. Cort Wrotnowski is ‘appreciated’ in his home town:


  77. There isn’t a Fourth Estate any longer. They lost their remit ages ago. But their recent expressions showing their abdication of their responsibility has gone way beyond what was previously possible in callousness, dismissiveness and a total disregard of the well-being of the nation.

    On the other hand the media are an expression of ourselves and thus, to the extent that we become dismissive, callous and deceitful, so do our instituitions. Pray, not so, the Supreme Court. Yet, ALL our subject to that caveat noted by De Tocqueville, that in a Democracy the people get the leaders they deserve.

    Let us hope and pray that those independent minded Justices are also free from the pull of the path of least resistance, and therefore, carrry out the duty expected of them by their nation’s framers.

    But, if it draw on, after Friday, the last act of horror will be the ‘Swearing In’ ceremony by the Chief Justice. That will be the watershed. That will be the turning point, and the historical end of this nation’s experiment in Democracy, and the Rule of Law, and the beginning of anarchy and the rule of the herd.

    So Leo, let the media cackle on, in their meaningless and mindless manner. Leave the vacuous alone with their empty hopes and dreams for undefined Change. For even if it’s only the few, the few know, in their hearts if not in their heads, what you been fighting for and against. And if you win, you will be noted in history as another example of a TRUE American of valor, honor and patriotism. And if you lose, you still are sir!

  78. Keep fighting! No matter how this ends, I hope a book is written to document all of these findings.

  79. Donna Matrix Says:

    As a current law student, these cases are of great interest to me. My motivation for going to law school is just this – to fight for right, my country, and it’s constitution. It’s wonderful to see lawyers pressing the constitutional case. The way I see it, the Supreme Court will show by it’s actions whether we are ruled by men or by law (a constitution). May God help help you in this battle.

  80. [Ed. St. John’s University, School of Law class of 1990. Admitted to the NJ state bar and Federal practice in ’91.]

    Leo, What’s your educational/professional background (undergrad, law school, bar admissions with years)? Can’t find you in Martindale-Hubbel or other directories searched thus far. Please provide response in support of article we’re writing. Thank you.

  81. [Ed. Feel free to publish it.]

    I would like to publish your latest missive, in full, in my newspaper online, which would include attribution and links back to here. This is clearly written and it would be a shame to see it butchered by a writer conveying what is stated so well here. I also find that if we publish parts and not all, readers will not link to the page here to read the rest, which clearly should be read by every American.
    I happen to be in your court, so to speak, and agree that journalists have abdicated their right to call themselves professionals. Newspapers in particular are more enamored with celebrity than getting to the root of any issue. Every time they do the celebrity envy dance, they drive another nail into their self-constructed coffins. The Nation has been harmed by their naivete.
    Albeit, I do agree with you though, the Washington Times stands far above the rest. I hope they survive the contraction gripping the industry.
    It is not necessary to post this, please reply to editor@carrollstandard.com or paste reply as an Ed. Note.

  82. Leo,

    In regard to the media’s reference of you and everyone else who is Upstanding, I just want to say that people’s eyes have been opened
    ever since the Unbalanced, one sided, election coverage.

    More and more everyday, people are getting educated on the internet, and
    on their own and don’t take media’s news at face value. Everybody knows by now that media gives us “News WE CAN BELIEVE IN”. Media
    preaches to the choir and energizes their base and that’s about it.
    You Might Look at it as they’ve thoroughly Succeeded in giving THEMSELVES a Bad name.

    It would have been great if there was even “A ONE” in MSM who would
    have been Upstanding enough to cover the Supreme court cases because
    at the moment, they rule, they’re the only outlet, and they’re the quickest
    way to reach many in shortest amount of time, however, you’d never be able to trust it in print.

    MSM is on a Honeymoon and either they’ll live happily ever after or
    they’ll be a slave to what they can print in the future. Either way their days are numbered.The days of “being told” the truth are over and the Intenet momentum is gaining ground.

    You have this website and you are doing a Fantastic, far better Job of
    covering and explaining the facts than the media would ever give you
    credit for. People can find the real you, right here on your website, right after the media “Trashes” your good name. How foolish of them to pen inaccuracies or insults, it only makes their own reputation worse.

    This 14th ammendment explaination is Awesome. You’ve Excelled in explaining it and you do so across the board. Thank You for It and For
    Everything you’ve put your Hand, Heart and Mind to doing for America.

  83. Amazing. Just amazing.

  84. [Ed. OK, COLB not BC, my bad. But you can’t prove his actual COLB was altered since you’ve never looked at it in person. The web posting of it is just a photo and is not the actual document. How could he know no Court or SOS would ask to see it? What would he have done if they did ask? I don’t buy the fake COLB theory at all. ]

    You say, “I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent certification of birth at his web site.” Why do you believe this? (It was not a birth certificate but a certification of birth which is not the same)

    I believe Obama was issued an original COB from Hawaii also. The “certification of birth” on his web site is in fact a certification of birth which has been altered for some reason. I say there is no way in “” it wasn’t altered. I can prove it was altered.

    Keep in mine I saved the bobirthcertificate.jpg from http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    The certification of birth jpg image has since been replaced/altered with another jpg, which does not contain the information that the bobirthcertificate.jpg contained when I personally checked it with a common hex editor to reveal the data within the jpg image.

    I am not an expert, I don’t have to be an expert. As I have stated, I downloaded the Obama certification of birth jpg directly from Obama’s web site. I next checked it with my hex editor. BINGO in the right side column was the date and time it was altered. How can you refute this information?

    Now there can be No Doubt as to the fact the image of Obama’s birth certificate from Obama’s web site was altered when checked with a hex editor. The hex editor displays information about the image and in this case reveals the image was edited with adobe photoshop CS3 on 6/12/2008 at 8:42am

    It was altered on a Macintosh.2c Using Adobe Photoshop CS3 at 08:06:12 08:42:36 as indicated in the right side column of the free hex editor I downloaded to check this out myself. Wow! whoever did this did not know about hex editors and the fact they can be used to check an image attributes. The editor also can be used to change the attributes but in this case it seems very obvious the changed attributes match what has been altered to fake Obama’s certification of birth, which IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. A State seal and signature were added later to another jpg on his web site. The jpg I examined had no State seal or offical signature.

    Now I don’t know why it was altered. I don’t know why Obama or his campaign would post an altered certificate of birth. It makes no sense to me but I believe my own eyes, my own hex editor etc.

    With all this said, assuming what I have said is true this nation has seen nothing proving Obama is citizen other than that he says that he is a citizen and that he is a dual citizen by stating this on factcheck.org by admission of his fathers Kenyan citizenship.

    I just wanted you to know I have seen the evidence of an altered certificate of birth on my own computer using a common hex editor and that this was a simple thing for me to do or anyone taking the time to check the jpg from his web site in the past.

    I agree the birth certificate issue is some what of a side show compared to your case of dual citizenship for Obama. But I disagree with your thoughts as to the certificate of birth posted in the past on Obama’s web site.

    Your thoughts sir.

    Link to the picture I downloaded from the Obama web site in the past.

    Link to a free hex editor to check it yourself.

    I also think this is also interesting Hawaiian law also.

    Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

    I hope you prevail Friday and the Constitution is upheld.

  85. [Ed. Here Here. Bravo reader, “principiis obsta” indeed. Man, you hit the nail on the head with this quote. It makes sense that Ben Franklin was into the “Laws of Nations” and it was consulted by the Framers.]

    The following from the “Law of Nations” seems very relevant to the situation we have today with Obama’s elegibility. The gist is that the constitution is attacked gradually over time until “states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution.”

    [quote]§ 30. Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.

    The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.

    It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises. [/quote]

  86. [ed. I’ll have a look, but I think that’s relatively accepted. Thanks for the link.]


    Has Leo commented on this case ?

    Luria v. United States

    Relevant quote being ………….

    Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

  87. Dear Leo, I have followed this controversy for many months. I am not a lawyer, but I wrote this. If it is in total error, don’t post. Let me know, if this argument has any validity. BTW, Thank you for all you have done for our country.

    Dismissals and Article 5

    Non-action is equally, by the Courts, inherently, in certain constitutional arguments, acting as an “amending body”. This is how Presidents for 40 years have managed to send our troops to “undeclared wars”. Non action by the Courts in these matters citing among other reasons, that they do not rule on issues which have become “political”, IS, ACTING BEYOND THEIR JUDICIARY SCOPE, by allowing through INACTION, Articles to not be interpreted, which in effect, is full denial of the Article. There are times when Denial of an Article challenge by the lower courts through refusal to act upon the challenge, in this instance the Article 2, Section 1, in effect allows the Constitutional rights of all citizens to be placed in a constitutional “limbo”. There is no redress to dismissal, unless dismissal can be shown to violate, the Constitution, and in effect, be the cause for a Dismissal pertaining to ruling on the violated Article as it then becomes, effectively, moot.

    Article 5, may provide the protection for this,

    When it can be determined, that Judicial system in the Lower Courts, has effectively, shown, that Court to be through dismissal acting as the Amending Body.

    Because the election has transpired, and the Supreme Court dismissed the stay, it can be argued, in another upcoming case to the Supreme Court, that because the election was not “stayed” by the lower court– that the lower courts denied the citizen/States their constitutional rights to amend the constitution and instead allowed a citizen, who was ineligible under Article 2 Section 1 to be on all ballots nationally. The citizen, not being qualified under Article 2 Section 1, through admission of Dual Citizenship, created through usage of monies, campaign handlers, the DNC, and various other outlets, a systematic ratification of a new Article, that does not fit the current Article as defined in the Constitution by a majority election, rather than through Article 5.

    The Constitutional rights of all individuals are being denied as long as the Courts refuse to address issues directly related to issues of the Articles in the Constitution, these non actions by not interpreting the Constitution through abdication of judicial duty has allowed the Constitution to NOT be preserved, which in effect, “alters” it, and is in direct conflict with Article 5 which exists solely for the people/States to determine. Therefore any citizen may in effect petition the Supreme Court for the severe loss of a Constitutional right, should an ineligible candidate try to assume any federal office, and numerous Courts fail, to make such ruling, and instead rule that the citizen had “no standing” and/or the election was over. Elections are not by design meant to undermine the Constitution, however when a result that is in direct conflict with the Constitution is allowed to Stand, all citizens who have tried unsuccessfully to determine the eligiblility of candidate Obama, who have been denied, due to lack of standing may ultimately determine that the Courts rulings in this matter deny the rest of the citizenry, their rights as the amending body of the Constitution under Article 5 should such a case as Senator Obama’s be allowed to proceed and he become the President. Article 5 allows the leverage needed by the citizens to challenge the Courts of Law, who refuse to address their grievances, and in effect, through this refusal allow a breach of the Articles of the Constitution to remain operant, while in direct conflict with the Instrument itself.

  88. [Ed. That’s not an interview with Scalia. It’s a very warped piece of writing as well. The writer is Whelan. Scalia is not interviewed and does not explain nbc. I disagree with the conclusions of the article.]

    In this July 13, 2005 interview Justice Scalia explains how he as a Justice would determine whether or not a candidate is a Natural Born Citizen. Edward Whelan, NRO conducted the interview and posted his arcticle called, “Are You an Originalist?”


  89. Dear Leo,

    A fundamental problem of the journalistic community, besides the obvious bias, is the shear laziness of the journalistic community to accurately research and report the stories they are charged with covering. I suspect I’m being generous when I wager that 98% of “facts” reported on the ‘net and elsewhere are dubious at best. And we, as end users and synthesizers of the information being reported, have become equally languid in our tenacity to demand that Truth, regardless of the outcome, prevail.

    Please do not be surprised or taken aback that your argument is lumped in with those who are popularly described as members of the “tin foil” sect – as it is simply the most convenient and expeditious method to “lump things together” without discrimination, thereby maintaining the precept that supports the demand for digestible tidbits of uncertain information, AKA soundbites.

    I share your frustration with the lack of vigor in the journalistic community, and challenge all readers/observers with going the extra mile to ascertain what is indeed the Truth, seeking beyond that which is filtered, distilled and conveniently packaged for our consumption.



  90. Leo,

    The feeling I get in this situation is that a denial of Cort’s case by the SC tomorrow would put the final nail in the coffin of all hope to get the Judicial Branch to address the BHO eligibility issue. Nothing else can put a stop to the Electors voting in four days and choosing BHO as the next President of the United States.

    The out going Executive Branch has no say in this deal, and the Legislative Branch is 2/3rd Democrat and would never stand against their idol. What’s left?

    The Armed Forces!

    [Ed. God forbid. The SCOTUS is the end of the line, one way or the other. ]

  91. The media has much to answer for and that is why they are silent. They probably feel somewhat responsible for jumping on the Obama wagon without giving professional consideration to what an Obama precedent would mean to future elections.

    I have lost all respect for the media. As much as it hankers for novelty, I think it is primarily motivated by lust and that anyone over 50 turns it off.

    McCain lost because he was old. It’s that simple. It’s the same reason why Hillary was rejected by her own party.

  92. Lederhosen Says:

    Lieber Leo.

    From all of us across the pond, good luck! We are still with you!

  93. I commented above:

    “The next question is the manner in which the Electoral College is directed by the Court to proceed or not to proceed. (It would seem that Hillary Clinton now becomes the front-runner.)”

    On further thought, there is an alterative for the Supreme Court — which, in the end, is likely to be more practicable (really doable) and amenable to the American populace (albeit some level of civil unrest and “Bush bashing” can be expected), which is:

    The Supreme Court declares the existing election a “fraudulent election” and orders a new one — say with the election in April, inauguration in June — with the current President invoking National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 (you can google this) and continuing as “President” beyond 1/20/09 with an appointed “National Continuity Coordinator” until inauguration of the new President. (If that plays out, one can easily imagine Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin — the clear front-runners of each party.)

    Seem far fetched? Actually not; in fact may be the single most likely scenario. Also, with the reported availability of some 20,000 troops for domestic tranquility (if need be) coupled with recent (many would say “extreme”) actions already taken by the Federal Government to stabilize the financial sector of the economy — doesn’t seem far fetched at all.

    I don’t think we should fear this. I believe the Supreme Court, Congress and the American citizens can and will handle this — thanks in large part to the brilliance of the Framers of the Constitution and resiliance and fortitude of the American people. We may likely emerge a better, stronger nation coming through all this — sort of a renewed America cognizant of the Constitution.

    All Americans owe a great deal of gratitude to that New Jersey professional poker player and part-time (apparently retired) lawyer, Leo Donofrio. To say this is an amazing story is a gross understatement.

  94. Interesting…

    from: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/588

    But in the long run, the chances that a federal court will demand that Hawaii allow a forensic inspection of Obama’s birth records are better than one might assume. Edwin Vieira explains: “Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have ‘standing’ to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign — such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they ‘cling.'” So as soon as Obama signs a bill into law that has a negative effect on an American, that American will have standing to sue Obama to find out whether Obama actually has the power to sign the bill. Things could get interesting.

  95. Joe E. SHeldon Says:


    Perhaps the court might rule the individuals mentioned in your action as being ineligible under the NBC and allow the EC to continue without the names on the agenda.

    Might be simpler than any “stay” per se and surely would define the NBC as part of the ruling. It would then be pretty “wild and wooly” at the EC voting (and later).

  96. roy bleckert Says:

    [Ed. Supp briefs are only allowed under Rule 15.8 for new cases or intervening matters… cases that existed but were weren’t aware of are not allowed… the Chester Arthut thing was a new historical discovery.]

    Leo with all these new cases, laws, info are you going to file another supp. brief Thrusday so the SCOTUS has them before conf. on friday?

  97. Leo,

    I had sent you a comment by a retired prosecutor (at 1:52pm, December 11, 2008). My comment is still awaiting your moderation.

    I just want to add that in no way do I share this retired prosecutor’s cynism about SCOTUS. But I thought you should know. I hope he’s wrong.

    In our age of disillusionment, you and Cort are my heroes and remain in my prayers. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide & inspire you!

  98. Leo you have moved many people to act that would not oterwise do so.

    Article II, Section 1 specifically states: snip

    Yet, nowhere in the US Constitution is there authorization for a mechanism to assure that Article II, Section 1 is satisfied; there is no constitutional mechanism in place — either in the original document of in any of the amendments — that requires a candidate for the office of President of the United States to file documents proving his eligibility to hold office.

    In light of this startling revelation, BasicsProject.org has set in motion an initiative to put into place, through the power of a Constitutional Amendment, a mechanism that would require candidates for the offices of the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States to present an original, first-source, vaulted birth certificate to the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate no later that forty-eight (48) hours after receiving his political party’s nomination.

    Further, this Constitutional Amendment would require said candidates to provide all military, scholastic, financial, criminal records in total, along with relevant medical records, to an open source archive to be certified by the Library of Congress and maintained by the National Archive.

    This endeavor will not be achieved easily and it will not be done without financial sacrifice for the effort. It will be met with the full resistance of the political establishment, both in the elected class and from those ensconced in inside-the-beltway institutionalism. But true patriots, true Americans, those who care about passing the promise of liberty and freedom — the promise of America — to their children and their children’s children understand that it is our duty to protect the Charters of Freedom — The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and The Bill of Rights — from nefarious forces.

    Patriots! A call to arms

  99. stand up and fight Says:

    [Ed. As to holding my cards close to my vest, it does not apply to this case. I am more conerned with getting to the truth and sharing it then winning at all costs. I am more than happy to share my best with the other side as the truth is a complete honor in itself.]


    I know you are well schooled in the constitution of this country.If you were a justice would you grant Courts case?How can 9 justices of the supreme court with all their combined wisdom not also realize the validity and importance of Courts case?Also as a card player you know to hold your cards close to your chest so as to not let your competition have an edge.May god continue to bless America and you.

  100. If possible, please edit 1st sentence of Mark’s thread to read…

    A fundamental problem of the journalistic community, besides the obvious bias, is their shear laziness to accurately research and report the stories they are charged with covering.

    I referenced “journalistic community” twice in the 1st sentence. Hate to be repetitive.

    Note to self – edit, edit edit!

  101. Please read and remove my 1:54 comments. Thanks, Kris

  102. Leo,
    Feel free to delete my 2:04pm comment – it doesn’t stand well on it’s own.
    I feel better having written it – but I don’t care about seeing it online.

    Just seriously consider writing a book as others have suggested.
    And thanks again for doing this.

  103. roy bleckert Says:

    [Ed. depends on what they want.]

    If you are granted writ ,will you be able to bring up all these new findings?

  104. I stand corrected. Whelan merely speculates and hypothesizes there.

  105. [Ed. Considering the treatise as quoted misquotes the Constitution, I doubt its relevance to the issue.]

    You may have this already, I don’t recall:

    Tucker’s Blackstone – Tucker’s Blackstone has been cited in numerous cases by the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to discern the original intent of the Constitution. Eller, The William Blackstone Collection in the Yale Law Library 87. Sabin, A Dictionary of Books relating to America 5696. Cohen, Bibliography of Early American Law 5318. A monumental work of continuing relevance, this reprint edition is prefaced by a new critical introduction by Professors Paul Finkelman and David Cobin. Publisher: Lawbook Exchange (September 1996)

    Online @ http://www.amazon.com/Blackstones-Commentaries-Constitution-Government-Commonwealth/dp/1886363153?tag=dogpile-20

    From Tucker’s Blackstone – [Section 14 – Executive Powers]
    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague.” – Volume 1 — Appendix Note D

    Online @ http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm

  106. Seems they were arguing Blackstone resources back in May of this year on a forum as to John McCain. You weren’t alone. Except they’re arguing over the validity of the Blackstone resource.


  107. kittycat77 Says:

    “The feeling I get in this situation is that a denial of Cort’s case by the SC tomorrow would put the final nail in the coffin of all hope to get the Judicial Branch to address the BHO eligibility issue. Nothing else can put a stop to the Electors voting in four days and choosing BHO as the next President of the United States.”

    No! Have hope and trust. Divine intervention can solve this issue. This may make me sound as crazy as a hoot owl, but go and restudy Midway. If you study it seriously, you’ll see that Yahweh’s hand worked for us. And I don’t know if Leo will allow me to say Yahweh’s name here, even though it’s in the OT almost 7,000 times and 8,000 including places removed from the NT. And Yahweh worked for us at Midway. It wasn’t us. Occasionally he does this because of his covenant and his covenant agreement will stand.

    Please, go and study it. We have just a few “good” years left before all goes downhill completely. Maybe 7 more. After about 2016/17, it’s the end of the unconditional blessing period. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

  108. bob strauss Says:

    Leo, keep the faith. Don’t let the attack machine get you down. You are the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and should be Time magazine man of the year! Scalia will not allow the precedent to be established that would weaken our constitution. He is a very serious justice and doesn’t seem to be likely to go along with the politically correct crowd. I think tomorrow 12/12 08 at SCOTUS will be the time and the place for Scalia to define NATURAL BORN CITIZEN once and for all, and follow the constitution just as he did for the second amendment issue in DC. It was the way he stood up for the second amendment that gives me faith, and with your case for guidance he will do the same for this important issue before him.

  109. Leo,

    I was looking at Supreme Court dockets to see any interesting patterns. Unfortunately, for this term, 42 cases (almost all certs) which were dismissed by one Justice, eventually didn’t win or go to arguments. But it still didn’t make sense for Scalia to send it for conference on the same day that yours was dismissed, after having it on his desk for 9 days, unless it was done on purpose.

    So, I tried to glean some time constraints or something from the time the case is refiled to the time it is sent for conference. It varies tremendously, but is as short as 2 days among those few cases for this term. This does seem a positive element when you consider Scalia’s positions on relevant matters. Why would he do that otherwise?

  110. […] another note, Donofrio makes a great case for “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA […]

  111. kittycat77 Says:

    [Ed. As to holding my cards close to my vest, it does not apply to this case. I am more conerned with getting to the truth and sharing it then winning at all costs. I am more than happy to share my best with the other side as the truth is a complete honor in itself.]

    Leo, this is one of the attributes of the true meaning of love, meaning the truth! Because you value the truth at so many costs, well, this is what we are all supposed to be wanting — the truth! For example, 1 Cor. 13 in talking about “love,” says this:

    1Co 13:6 love…. does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth.

    See, truth is an uptmost thing in the Scriptures as we must develop a love of the truth to be saved. And it means that love of the truth is not always easy. As a matter of fact, truth can set you apart from others where some people don’t care for you speaking it or standing by it that you even thought were your friends. A love of truth can make one unpopular!

  112. Thank you Leo and Cort. I have been following your efforts to have the Supreme Court decide on this important issue of citizenship and eligibility for the office of President. Our political leaders have failed to protect our Constitution and our Great Nation. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

  113. [Ed. I agree with the reader. Although the press is also to blame. And how many of you just gave McCain a pass on this issue too?]

    Can we please stop blaming the press for our collective failure to vet BO? Somehow, some of us found out all we needed to know about the candidate. Then, what did we do with this information? For all of us too afraid to share with the loyal opposition, what we have learned, this one is on us. I posted everywhere, last August, that people who were concerned BO was Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, should file challenges with their respective Secretaries of State to keep BO off the ballot. How many of you did this? And now, according to a comment above, an organization is planning a Constitutional Amendment to require specific vetting of the Party nominee as to natural born citizenship by the Congress. What are you talking about?

    As I have written so many times, the general election balloting implicates state issues: state laws say, the nominee of the major political party is entitled to get onto the ballot; the Secretary of State will ensure the legality of the ballot; and the name of the candidate submitted by the state party chair shall be eligible for the office sought. YOU WROTE THESE LAWS, THROUGH YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS! If you continue to allow the major political parties special access to the general election ballot in your state, that’s on you. If you allow your S of S to “assume” a party candidate has already been vetted as to eligibility, that’s on you. CA, if you allow the Democratic Party to submit the name of an elector in 2008 who died in 2001, and your S of S to verify that pick, that, most certainly, is on you. How many of you have contacted your state representatives and senators to enact legislation to fix these loopholes? How many of you even understood your current laws? Stop running around like chickens with your heads cut off. All politics is local; start at home.

  114. truthseeker Says:

    [Ed. My relief will be playing poker and rock and roll. I suggest you pray in that case that Barack Obama do a fantastic job that makes us proud.]


    Question. If the Supreme Court dismisses all of the cases and January 20th comes and now Obama is a sitting “foreign” President the courts and remedies have let us down. What is our relief? Can we if we believe the Constitution has been compromised now revolt? Afterall it seems only someone’s opinion. No facts. Because if they (SCOTUS) did follow the facts this would have been over a long time ago.

  115. kittycat77 Says:

    [Ed. I’m getting a ton of messages and trying to mod every one. You are free to repost the same material and I will give it a fair shake.]


    I figure that you won’t post my messages. Yet I hope that you consider that I said. If you’ll study what I was saying, you’ll see that it’s TRUTH. It’s okay if you don’t post them because I know others may not be interested. I just figured if you’re into the truth in every way, shape or form, then you’ll see what I’m saying is truth too.

    BTW, I love truth, be it life, politics, law, scriptures…

    In Yahweh,

  116. [Ed. I may do a post on the main cases.]


    In your essay, when you revise to refine it, you may include the leading cases on citizenship that are WRONGLY applied by others and EXPLAIN once and for all why those case law are not applicable.

    This is to prevent people for confusing the issue by wrong application of case law.

    It is better to proactively prevent them from using those cases in their favor before they actually use these cases to confuse us.


    do you think the scotus would go on break without a decision on this matter and decide and interveine at a later date? and could they? are there any legal grounds for them to interveine after the electors meet and cast? are there any cases which have had similar deadlines and have been handled in the manner i am supposing. after all this is such a big event and outcry, and there are several cases in the wings. are there not other avenues to approach before the big day of inauguration even if not pursued by you, but by the other cases as well. who will also gain wisdom from your prior procedures and file for various other concerns that you have been able to bring to light? and the big question then is will you consider keeping your blog forum up and update us as to what is going on, as this has been the #1 place for so many of us as to the high quality of your research and court etiquette that you display. and i do beleive you have a very large group that has not bloged or made there presence known that are also extremely involved mentally on this matter.

    thanks again for the mind expanding service you are rendering.

  118. Modesta Lewis Says:

    All I can say is thank-you so very much for all that you are doing and have done for this, a special blessing has been bestowed upon you that no one can take away but GOD and with that I say to you GOD bless you and thank-you again. With all sincerity, Modesta.


    is this video clip worth while it seems informative for a quick overveiw of the elector process and importance as to why we need intervention quickly?


    sorry here is the video clip duh

  121. When Obama campaigned in Berlin, Germany and declared himself a Citizen of the World, I think he truly meant it in a way none of us understood at the time.

  122. Greg wrote: “There are nations out there that do not recognize the naturalization of their citizens by other nations. Italy, for example, considers anyone born of someone Italian, with no limitation on generations to also be a citizen of Italy, unless one of those generations has affirmatively renounced his right to Italian citizenship.”

    I would point out, as one who has studied this sectin of Italian law, that what you say, Greg is incorrect. Italy does recognize the naturalization of its citizens as US citizens. In fact, the 1948 law which grants jus sanguinis citizenship to the children of Italian citizens, either of the father or of the mother, expressly excludes those Italian parents who have renounced their citizenship before US govt representatives as is done when one applies for US naturalization. Also, I belive that the 1948 law only pertains to the children and grand children. If those two classes don’t seek recogniztion, the next generation looses the right.

    Also, in Italian law, it is not a question of claiming ciitzenship by jus sanguinis, but of seeking recognition, because Italian law regards all such as already citizens. But this does not set a precedent in US law, because Roman or Italian law has never been the law of the USA, just as neither common law has. And in the matter of jurisdiction, it is clear that Italian law does recognize the US jurisdiction over its naturalize citizens who renounce Italian citizenship, thus following de Vattlel’s expression of the common opinion on this matter.

    Thus if you father and mother are US citizens, regardless of what other nation offers jus sanguinis citizenship, this does not go against the concept of Natural Born US citizen. In cases of immigrants, it has long been establish in US law that the children of naturalized citizens are naturalized when their parents are. Thus the NBC definition in de Vattle does not nullify the broader notion of citizenship of millions of Americans.

  123. I’m not sure if i’m on the same page as some people here..but it’s not about Obama the person.

    It’s about the persons that have the same similarities in citizenship as Barack Obama does, as Chester Arthur did, and ineligibley running for President.

    It just can’t happen. It shound’t happen…ever.

    This has been quite the history lesson for me as well as for many others.
    But don’t think for a minute that when all is well and decided, that this will be the last time we look at our Constitution, or research a specific law, or be interested in what the Supreme Court is doing.

    This has awakened many people to the fact that they indeed have a compassion, and a geniune love for their historical, precious, Constitution.

    We can’t change history.
    We can’t change the fabric of our Constitution.

    God Speed People.

  124. Leonard Daneman Says:

    Here is a snippet from the Whelan article cited above, ‘Are You an Originalist.’

    “For what it’s worth, although I haven’t researched the issue, my own strong intuition is that the phrase “natural born Citizen” is meant to identify those persons who were citizens at birth, by virtue of the citizenship laws in effect at the time, as opposed to those who were naturalized after birth. And, any of you lawyers out there, please don’t tell me that the issue isn’t, or might not be, justiciable; my question is how to determine what the provision means, not whether courts would in fact decide it.”

    As Leo commented, it is “warped.” Intuition and not researching the issue seems to be the modus operandi of today’s media, voters, and congress . . . and quite a few lawers and judges it seems.

    A Natural-Born Citizen is born having only one possible Nationality. A Naturalized citizen, at birth, requires statutory conditions to remove all but one nationality. Obama, at birth, had three nationalities, and a fourth added as a minor. He established his U.S. citizenship as an adult, 14 to 25 years of age, as statute provides. He is as far from being a Natural Born citizen as imaginable.




  126. you are a gentleman and a scholar, sir!

  127. For Texo,

    You need to include passport records, adoption and any oath of allegiance records. The circumstances in Mr. Obama’s life could have led to a loss of his citizenship and he apparently did not declare US citizenship at majority and renounce all other possible citizenships.

  128. [Ed. Cort’s was resubmitted to Scalia. Mine was resubmitted to Thomas.]

    Can someone plz explain me why Cort’s is up to Scalia to decide and Leo’s (previous one) went to Clarence Thomas?


  129. Leonard Daneman Says:

    WHY The SUPREME COURT Is The ONLY Arbiter Of Obama’s NATURAL-BORN Status . . .

    Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, (http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm) Obama’s British citizenship devolved from the Father at birth in the colonies.

    However, Obama’s British citizenship was forfeited because of Kenyan independence. He became Kenyan. British jurisdiction came into question when his mother registered him in Hawaii a few days after his birth. Was Obama born under British jurisdiction in Kenya? . . . or U.S. jurisdiction in Hawaii. If born in the U.S., the British Father was required to register Obama with the British secretary of state within one year.

    In the case above, the Birth Certificate is essential evidence. Funiko said it was genuine, but from what country? However, being born of one U.S. citizen and a foreign national, Obama was still not natural-born as he required strict conformity of statute to eliminate foreign nationality.

    Under U.S. law, U.S. citizenship could flow from the U.S. citizen mother even if the child was born in Kenya, but only if the mother was unmarried and a resident of the U.S. ten years, plus one year post 14 years of age. However, this scenario is not that of a natural-born citizen either.

    Then there is the Indonesian naturalization by adoption, but U.S. statute provides for elimination of naturalization while a minor through residency requirements.

    As I said, there is only one remote scenario by which Obama can legally claim natural-born status, and that is impossible to prove without a surprising fact on a valid birth certificate, or other proof of paternity other than Obama, Sr.

    This is too complex an issue of fact and law for Congress, or the voters. The U.S. Supreme court MUST review this case.

  130. I am a retired high school American History teacher and reading your blog,listening to your interviews on the radio and just seeing in your actions the love you have for the American Constitution leaves me with hope that this great nation will rebound from the injuries being perpetrated upon us by our elected and appointed leaders. When this is all said and done would you please write more about the great power citizens have in Grand Juries, the process of jury nullification, and how we as citizens might begin the process of calling for a new constitutional convention in order to correct and clear up some of the past decisions and misconceptions foisted upon us by leaders out of touch with there constituencies or who are simply corrupt.

  131. As far as I can see, Obama and McCain both made full disclosure about their citizenship. Both are not NBCs.

    The “guilty” parties are the DNC and RNC. “Guilty” because they both nominated unqualified candidates. They will both continue to be “guilty” when they certify the vote in January.

    Why didn’t you or anyone else take issue with them? After all, if you and I and everyone else knows the truth, they most certainly do.

    I believe the Supreme Court, in rejecting these cases, is in essence saying this is a problem that Congress has to deal with, not them.

    [Ed. The Court has not rejected Cort’s case at this point in time.]

  132. Its amazing how all of a sudden Fox’s Bill Orielly and Lou Dobbs reporting on Obama’s scandal and how all Obama’s Gost’s are comming out of Closset!!!!! I knew it was just a matter of time until Obama would shoot himself in the foot. It seems the Media has started to turn on him!!!!!! The Light is beeing turned on!!!! America Might be awakening from it’s deep somber. Hopefully our Supreme Court Justices are paying attention as for the CIA and FBI.


  134. I too am worried what the future might hold if America gets turned upside down and Obama becomes the first Usurper in American history. (except Chester Arthur, but he lied and got away with it, no one knew).

    Here is a very interesting commentary by Edwin Vieira Jr. Ph.D J.D. This article should be read right after yours Leo and put on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Ooops, who reads the lying MSM newspapers anymore. I wish there was an internet site that would show both. Yours to explain the Amendment with the facts of what it means and Dr. Vieira Ph.d. J.D. Jr. to explain the consequence of not following it. Excuse me if this has already been posted before.

    In the Shadow of a Nemesis

  135. [ed. The Supreme Court deals with actual cases and controversies. Until the issue is laid before them properly, they exercise restraint and that is good.]

    I wonder why one of the Supreme Court justices themselves, or any constitutional law expert, for that matter, did not pick up on the natural born citizen issue? Very perplexing why this simple prerequisite of born on American soil to two U.S. citizens escapes even the most brilliant legal minds in America?? I mean, NO ONE brought up this issue (maybe about McCain, but not about Obama) before Leo Donofrio.

    You would think Scalia, or Thomas, or Roberts, or Alito just speaking as an American citizen would have said, “Hey, Article II sec. 1 states that………given this, are you sure Obama, McCain, and Calero are eligible candidates?”

    The lack of proactive oversight and Constitutional adherence by the members of our justice system prior to the election is just very odd.

  136. To: jbjd,
    Thank you for your comment. You are so right on. I am guilty of not even thinking about this happening or thinking that it would. I am going to write my S of S tonight! We can’t trust the MSM to report the truth and facts so we must elect and expect our local governments to do it first and foremost. Until this issue came up, I never would have thought it would have been an issue and gave too much credit to our elected officials that they would be honest. I will never assume that again!

    Sorry Leo for another comment from me. I am just fired up a little bit and I wanted to thank the commenter. :>)

  137. I have just read the article on the Eligibility Question on Turley’s blog that references your case. Other than saying that “the argument for dual citizenship … is inherently weak”, he only argues two points, that, 1. “[T]he institutional culture of the Court weighs heavily to avoid such confrontations except in the most unavoidable circumstances”, and, 2. The Court is “still stinging from the Bush v. Gore controversy …” He then goes on to say that “One could call this [restraint] “political” or “cultural” or “institutional”, but it is an overriding value.” Overriding value? Is that it? Is he really suggesting the Court is this pusillanimous institution implied by this argument? Is this what you are up against?

    [Ed. It does appear that he his insulting the Court to me but in a very gentle way. My opinion is this: if SCOTUS thinks the application sufficiently makes the case, then SCOTUS will say so.]

  138. “If Barack Obama continues to evade the eligibility question, then on Dec. 15th all of the McCain electors should protest by voting for Hillary Clinton. If they stick to voting for McCain, then Obama will obviously become President since he has more than enough electors.”

    How about voting for Ron Paul?


  139. Interesting argument. It would logically follow that if China were to pass a law that made every person born on the planet a citizen of China (similar to their law that says Taiwan in a part of China) then it would therefore be impossible to elect *anyone ever* as President of the U.S. because of “dual citizenship at birth”.

    [Ed. The law doesn’t recognize the absurd or frivolous. In the case above, there would be no basis in Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis for the Chinese citizenship. Obama was a citizen – by blood descent – of Great Britain not by an absurd hyopothetical.]

    The funniest part is at the end. The “slam dunk” if you will…
    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.

    If you remove the obvious sexual bias in that statement and provide for a gender-neutral test (i.e. “father” and “mother” would be equal and replacable) you are back to arguing that Obama wasn’t born to his mother in Hawaii, which is something I’m pretty sure everyone rational has already conceded is a fact.

    [Ed. The Treatise was written in 1758 and was the way of the world. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the original intent of the phrase is explained in The Laws of Nations. The treatise as cited would appeal to an originalist like Justice Scalia, who referred Cort’s case to the full Court. Scalia just recently used The Laws of Nations in the Heller case where he wrote the opinion of the Court. Obviously, somebody like Justice Ginsberg probably wouldn’t be influenced by the Laws of Nations as to this issue. ]

  140. Leo, could the Justices rule favorably in conference on Cort’s case and then rule to provide their own list of those qualified and eligible (Under the Constitution) candidates to the Secretary of State and the electoral college?

    After retiring from the military I began working for the U.S. Government on the Island of Guam, a U.S. Territory, where everyone is born on the island a U.S. Citizen. Guamanians might not be born a Natural Born Citizen and it is a fact citizen residents on the Island of Guam are not allowed to vote in Presidential elections.

    Guam is not considered a foreign nation and was formed under the Guam Organic Act by Congress. I wonder if Congress covered the Natural Born issue in the Act?

  141. BerlinBerlin Says:

    If Cort’s case would be rejected, it could mean that the SC is afraid to apply the law onto everybody

    [Ed. The Supreme Court is NOT afraid. If they decide against hearing the case it will be for a good legal reason. I could have missed something… I’ve done my best. They know the law better than I. I believe Cort’s case has a shot at being heard, but I have faith in the Honorable Court should they not hear it.]

    , no matter what the person is, even the election winner.
    That could be expected, but, hello!, this election has shown pretty clear that the USA had various problems in the system as to how to elect a president.
    This system needs reform very much, but nobody who benefits from the flaws is going to reform it (Bush, Obama)
    Anyway, when Corts and Orlys cases are rejected, the whole Chicago scum is going to enfold. Already is.
    But I would prefer the simple task of proving his elilibity would be proven by Obama.

  142. [Ed. Relax Michelle. 🙂 Inside joke, so don’t think I’m getting on Michelle, she rocks.]

    Hollander v. McCain this past year (New Hampshire):

    “The meat of the motion to dismiss is that Mr. Hollander does not have standing to bring this case, that the claims are not ripe as the Constitutional requirements are for holding office and not for running for office, and that it is a political question that is not properly decided by the courts. The judge does not have to rule on the merits of the case nor respond to every issue raised in the motion.”

    [Ed. Standing in State Courts is much different. The Hollander decision failed to recognize the importance of Bush v. Gore. Furthermore, the Political Question Doctrine should only kick in after the Electoral College. Anyway, it’s all done now… SCOTUS will have their say even if it’s not to say. ]

  143. Here is the section of the Guam Organic Act concerning the Constitution:

    (u) The following provisions of and amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby extended to Guam to the extent that they have not been previously extended to that territory and shall have the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States: article I, section 9, clauses 2 and 3; article IV, section 1 and section 2, clause 1; the first to ninth amendments inclusive; the thirteenth amendment; the second sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment; and the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments.

    All laws enacted by Congress with respect to Guam and all laws enacted by the territorial legislature of Guam which are inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

  144. Isn’t it strange that the Congress can cherry pick the Constitution for U.S. Citizens?

  145. RayInWildwood Says:

    [Ed. Thanks for the good vibes. I play anything by ear, but mostly bass and piano/keys, and I sing and write lyrics. I have a killer Roland SH 101 monophonic analog synth which is the Holy bomb of white noise soundscapes.]


    Excellent article. Of course, I’ll be paying close attention to the SCOTUS for the next few days. There is nothing more that can be said. I defy anybody to say that you have not done the best you could. You broke your ass, went without sleep. I’m sure you would rather play cards and jam. So, all I have for you Bro, is thank you for doing the heavy lifting. Thanks Leo.

    p.s. you never did tell me what instrument you play

  146. Leo,

    God bless you! Your patience and steady, unrelentless pursuit of the truth calms me in these troubling times. It is evident that you have touched many.

    We will all be waiting with you tomorrow, you and Cort.

  147. Dear Leo,
    With the benefit of hindsight looking back at this election, I realized that many Americans are suffering from both apathy and ignorance…a complete “Who cares?” attitude. On Thanksgiving Day, thanks to your brilliant mind, I attempted to explain the nbc issue to my 16 year old twin nieces. What I got in response was “Who cares if Obama is a natural born citizen?” And this from teens who are very bright young women and have talked about a career in law!
    You, however, have restored my faith and I will be eternally grateful for your tenacity and love of country.
    Have you ever researched your family tree? I am willing to bet there is some “framer” in your genes!
    God bless you and the USA!
    Fellow NJ natural born citizen

  148. The Castellan Says:

    [Ed. We used a proper mechanism in Cort’s application by asking the Court to use any of the following: “Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or Prohibition. I wish I had done the same in my own brief. ]

    It goes beyond any shadow of doubt that the SCOTUS should issue a Writ of Mandamus to Obama, not a Writ of Certiorari.

  149. I’ve been working at bringing the news of tomorrow’s SCOTUS event to the MSM (alright, who laughed?). I’ve discovered that MSNBC has a sister site called, Newsvine.com, which allows for “publishing” of articles by everyday people without editorial interference. I just today posted an article that I hope will prove beneficial. It ends with a link to a webpage that I hope also assists in clarifying the facts. Naturally, it’s all always a ‘work-in-progress;’ and I continue, as a complete novice, to improve upon it.

    It all starts here: http://opeysheart.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/11/2203024-us-supreme-court-to-consider-hearing-new-obama-natural-born-case

  150. [Ed. I told the world quite clearly in this blog that I wasn’t coming to that press conference. I don’t know why they were looking for me or asking if I had arrived. ]

    I just can’t get enough of this…


    Cue to 36:04 into the conference.

  151. [Ed. The two issues are totally separate. One applies to McCain and the other to Obama. The Laws of Nations supports that a nbc has two citizen parents and is born in their country. Nothing in US law contradicts that so the treatise – which is not law – certainly supports our position that a natural born citizen of the US must be born to two US citizen parents in the US.

    As to the Laws of Nations position as to military families, it would argue that McCain being born in Panama sould be accepted as having been born in the US. But on this point the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual clearly cotradicts that theory since it says unequivocally at 7 FAM 1116.1-4 that military installations abroad are:

    “Not Included in the Meaning of ‘in the United States’ ”

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

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf ]


    It does not follow that our Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual directly contradicts the treatise because the treatise is dealing with Natural Born Citizen status not Citizen status. Also the 14th amendment only deals with Citizen status not Natural Born Citizen status and requirements.

  152. Reply to kittycat77,

    RE: TRUTH: http://www.universalfather.info

  153. RiskyWaters Says:

    Interesting read, but I’m afraid it won’t stop the Obama Express. It does prove that at one point in America there were people who knew what a natural born citizen was and it meant something. But now the country seems up for grabs. I’m certainly looking forward to all of this being over with and the Amreican people can focus on stopping the Bailouts and laws that are rapidly going on the books to end our rights.

    When Obama becomes President he will set a precedent for the those that follow. I think that Obama will change the consitution to say that ALL citizens will be eligible to be POTUS.

    Also, I am more confused by the Native born citizen vs. Natural born citizen. Are they one and the same? You answered Neil Johnson by saying that Native borns are the same as Natural born with two citizen parents. Then you stated to Yoshi99 that the Framers when considering who is eligible to be POTUS discussed Citezen and Native Borns then they were thrown out and excepted Natural borns as eligible to be POTUS.

    Can you please answer this question or are you not sure?

    [Ed. the definition of “natural born citizen” in Laws of Nations was as I’ve argued it should be

    2 us citizen parents + born in US – the treatise also said that such a person was a “native”.

    The distinction is fine, but clear… in the treatise there is no doubt that a nbc has two parent citizens and is born in the land of his parents, it’s just that such a person is also called a “native”.

    On the other hand, a “native born citizen” is a term erroneously thrown about as being equal to “natural born citizen” but it isn’t… the concept of “native born citizen” as applied to Wong Kim Ark does not include citizen parents as a pre-requisite.]

  154. LD,

    Reflecting upon the history of this matter, there is one more argument for the dual criteria observation that I would like to pass sharpen a bit. Admittedly, some would call it a “soft” argument, but it is very pointedly corroborative, IMHO.

    The catalytic letter from John Jay to George Washington, requesting the “natural born Citizen” clause is clearly written as a matter of national security and national defense.

    I placed that letter on this page:

    Whether the subject matter is national security, sports, or table top games, anyone who studies and understands the principles of defense realizes that one in a defensive position seeks to protect all likely vulnerabilities which are feasible to cover. When there are two commonly known and accepted vulnerabilities, one does not settle for covering only one of them.

    What householder facing neighborhood crime would lock his front door, but leave his back door open?

    I know that is more than inferred in what you have written, but where it still applies, I would tend to make it very explicit and tie it directly to the very most pivotal document we have, which indicates original intent here.

    God adjudicate for this special nation, today and onward, and be our Complete Defender; may our Republic not wounded by this “telegraphed punch.”

    Thank you, Leo,

    [Ed. Good points above. But please do not use bold face – i must reserve that for my replies. I had to snip the last part. I want to stay on point as to nbc.]

  155. It has been stated by one of the 2008 Presidential third party candidates who ran on a platform of constitutionalism that we ought to accept without court hearings the notion that “Natural born citizen” means only that the person was born on U.S. soil; “Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America.” Obviously, he has mistaken history. His beef is that our government has been selectively ignoring the SCOTUS in recent years, why apply it now?

    I say that this is more than just the straw that is breaking our back and that it is the people’s turn to say we must apply this document that is the basis for all of our law. The law and court system permits the grievances to be heard via law suit, or does it not?
    We will learn a lot more very soon, probably the weekend of Dec. 12-14, about whether or not we have a nation at all.

    If the case [Wrotnowski…] is heard and the highest court in the land rules for a definition of “Natural born citizen” to be only to have been born on U.S. soil or with the provision that only one parent had to be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, then I can let it rest.

    But if the case is not heard then in my mind we have no country.
    There will be a need for a declaration of independence by true Americans and the struggle will be on to build a nation based on the constitution, perhaps new and improved.

    As great as it is, if the case is not heard then there is an obvious weakness in the checks and balances provided by the SCOTUS for the U.S. government. It is not a perfect document. If we don’t continue to improve upon it then the attackers eventually find an Achilles heel and bring it down. It seems our Achilles heel is in the details of who in government or the public has “standing” to sue for the protection of the SCOTUS and the extent of the powers of the judicial to have command when the SCOTUS has been violated.

    I don’t know about you, but learning that our two major candidates passed through the system unchecked for basic constitutional eligibility has me aggrieved and feeling very injured with certain damages both psychologically and in time physically.

    That third party candidate had to have been disingenuous all along to not at least say that the case should be heard. The other points that he makes are well taken by this reader.
    [Ref: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html%5D

  156. The bottom line is:

    If you have to have the Senate bolster your Citizenship Status (like McCain), or even attempt to cure your Citizenship Status (like Obama might get Congress to do), then you are not a ‘natural born Citizen.’

    [Ed. Excellent point, Bob. I argued in Cort’s brief, “that which is natural is self evident”. You make the smae point eloquently.]

    To educate the American people, maybe we should get Jeff Foxworthy’s people to do a series: “If your Dad and Mom were born in America, you might be a ‘natural born Citizen.'” And then write another 100 scenarios. It’s really not that difficult! “If you are blank, blank, blank, you might grow up to be President!” [You fill in the blanks.]

    Really, it’s only one’s who aren’t ‘natural born Citizens that are the one’s who want to crash the party!

    Stop and think for a moment: The last thing any President wants to be, is at the beck and call of Congress! We’re supposed to have 3 co-equal branches of government, with a system of checks and balances.

    If your Citizenship Status has to be “created” or “cured” by Congress, then you owe Congress, plain and simple. What President wants that!

    Further, if Congress (or any foreign Head of State, Cabinet member, or Party Boss) knows something about you that the American Voter doesn’t know about you, then you can be blackmailed — “Just sign right here, Mr. President! That veto, Mr. President, we’ll we won’t talk about that, okay?”

    This is why to claim a “Right of Privacy” about anything in your past is the strategy of a lunatic! “Know it and show it” is your best protection.

    Let’s say that YOU are the President: Do you really hold the most powerful office in the world, if you’re prostrate on the carpet in the Oval Office, with your hands holding the ankles of some foreign Head of State (or member of your Cabinet, or some Party Boss!) begging them to keep quiet about your deep, dark secret you’ve never told the American people?

    [“Yes, Mr. Mayor,” “No, Mr. Mayor,” “Anything you say, Mr. Mayor” — I think you know what I mean!]

    You’ll certainly be a 1 Term President, that’s for sure — if nothing else, just from the humiliation of it! No wonder Chester A. Arthur was ill almost every day of his Administration, and has gone down in history as one of our “weakest” Presidents!

    Frankly, I don’t think that even the Judicial Branch wants to define the phrase ‘natural born Citizen,’ because it’s meaning is obvious to everyone but a slickster: “It depends on what you mean by ‘born!'”

    The best they can do for us is this — if your Citizenship Status is regulated by a uniform rule of naturalization created by an Act of Congress, then you are NOT a ‘natural born Citizen.’

    But, then you should have known that already, before you took out your nomination papers, and if you didn’t, then you really are [Ed. snip 🙂 easy does it ] and unfit to serve!

  157. As a supplement to my comments and by way of background, I submit that I am not a “fringe person”.

    Age 53, I was born in Abington, PA of parents, both born in Philadephia
    I attend church weekly, and pray daily to our God
    I hold a bachelors and masters in math. (Temple & Villanova)
    I am an honorably discharged Officer of the United States Marine Corps
    During ten years of post military civilian service, I held TOP SECRET SCI clearances (requiring an Extensive Background Investigation)
    I am a father of five productive law-abiding highly educated children
    I am a small business owner of 16 years and paid all taxes due.
    My bank credit rating is over 800
    I have never been a litigant and have observed the laws of our land

    I don’t consider myself “fringe”
    And as a U.S. Citizen still under the oath from my former office,
    I demand that the Wrotnowski case be heard, thoroughly argued from all sides and decided once and for all by our highest court before the Electoral College votes for the 2009 presidency.

  158. Hey Leo, I really appreciate you standing up and taking the heat for doing some good research and solid briefing. As somebody planning to become a lawyer, I appreciate your example. I don’t have any heroes that aren’t dead yet, but if I did you’d be on the list. Anyway.

    I was just over at Ben Smith’s blog (a little late, I know) reading his misrepresentation of your cases. Against my better judgment, I commented:

    There’s a gross misunderstanding of the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases apparent in these comments, and Ben, you should be ashamed at your piss-poor reporting of the Arthur find.

    Donofrio’s case is really straightforward, and it’s not any tinfoil-hattery, either. He’s saying that to be a natural-born citizen, one must be born to two citizen parents on American soil. He’s suing to have Obama, McCain, and Roger Calero (socialist candidate) ruled ineligible, and if the good Court decides not to hear it or to rule against him, he’s said he’ll be totally satisfied. This is not a bogus issue, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is an attempt to clarify and possibly to protect the Constitution we hold so dearly to from an illegitimate presidency.

    For the record, the weight of the evidence rests on Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s side. Most attacks on his position are either straw-man attacks, will of the people overrides everything attacks, or ad hominem accusations of tinfoil hattery. If you guys would take the time to read the last post on Donofrio’s blog, you’d have a basic grasp on what he’s driving at. But I’m sure the majority of you would rather just point and laugh.

    It’s tragic, what’s happening to us.

    For those that would like the other side of the argument, google naturalborncitizen. It’s a wordpress blog.


    Anyway, I’ll be watching with bated breath to see what happens today. Well, maybe not bated. The Court has disappointed too many times before. I really hope they seize the opportunity to clear up the ambiguity in the clause though. I for one would be more satisfied if they didn’t duck this thing. I’m convinced that you’re right — I just hope that it matters.

    God bless you, sir.


  159. [Ed. If you can find a simple law that defines natural born citizen in abc terms, please do so. If there was such a law there wouldn’t be all this confusion and it probably wouldn’t be an issue of first impression. Simply put, the issue has never been decided by SCOTUS. Should they be interested in deciding the issue, it is now before them. My goal was to get the issue on their desks. It happened. I never thought I would get two chances at it. The brief in my case was rather weak. The brief I prepared for Cort’s case is much more thorough. Win or lose, I hope they give us that abc definition you are asking for.]

    You know Leo…I’ve come here and read several of your posts, which made me curious…what is this guy talking about? So I reviewed the Constitution and it simply states the president must be “natural born citizen” However it does not define what that means…

    I have not seen you or anyone else post a clear law defining what “natural born” means. Rather it seems to me that you and others are relying on case law to prove your point? I think I read you are a lawyer or former lawyer or something. If that is the case, you understand that case law is open to interpretation because no two cases are EXACTLY alike… There are always sometimes even small differences, and depending upon the jury/judge you can come out with varying opinions. I’ve sat on juries who all heard the exact same testimony, and yet we felt very different about what we heard in the jury room…

    So my point is…if you’re so sure…then simply post the law that defines what this means…like “natural born citizen” = ABC…. state the law, where it can be found, and this can all be put to rest…right?

    I do not think you’re a nut, but your posts go on and on and on…and on…and they do not need to buddy…just put up the facts, and if they’re as clear as you say…then no one will argue…kinda like “hey it’s raining, here’s video of what’s going on outside…no one is going to say it’s sunny..

    If you can’t provide proof of these laws, then I think it is irresponsible of you to claim to be the arbiter of “the truth.” You simply have a different interpretation…. Certainly one that opposes most Americans, NJ legal system, and the Supreme Court…


    [Ed. That’s a totally unfair statement. If everybody who brought a law suit could provide “unassailable proof” of their legal argument, we wouldn’t have any genuine legal disputes. Where there is ambiguity, there is litigation. The only requirement for one to call themselves an arbiter of truth is that they tell the truth. I have done that on this blog without resort to snarky retorts, attacks, sarcasm or obfuscation. Your comment is unjustified, sir.]

  160. Leo, please allow me to post this statement.
    I have been labeled a racist, and so have the rest of your supporters. I have attempted to respond to these individuals but my response is never posted. Many people read your blog, I would like to respond, because this is a jacket that is just too repugnant.

    To the individuals who have been told that we are racists, as well as to those that are making this ugly accusation:

    There is only one race, the human race. If there is any other race on this planet please, introduce me and the rest of the the world to them.

  161. [ed. I’ve seen this before but I don’t know anything about it.]

    Leo, could this action be related to the presidential eligibility issue or a broader constitutional agenda?


  162. NoDividedLoyalty Says:

    For your review, in case you haven’t seen it already: 20 year old examination of the natural born issue by Jill Pryor for the yale law journal. Dug up for the Panama McCain attempts at obfuscation. http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html

    No matter how loud the demagogic masses yell and scream, they don’t get to decide the intent of the founders based on which way the wind is blowing at any given election.

  163. Well, what it may mean doesn’t matter now. What it says does. It says that anyone born on US soil is a citizen. What it says after that is of less importance to most people. I would agree that there were people alive at the time of it’s writing who believed it said more, like both parents had to be under US jurisdiction, but it doesn’t say so. It is open to wide interpretation. A court could try to decide, but this would be highly contentious. Would you give up and drop the issue if the decision went against your interpretation. I doubt it. So, I think your best course of action would be to argue for an Amendment that clarifies the issue for all future generations, once and for all. Yes?

    [Ed. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but if the Court drops the issue, I’m goig back to poker and and being a minor league indie rock star.]

  164. southerncross Says:

    This posting should be stickied to the senate doors! Or just to every constitutional loving website in the nation. A great write Leo!

  165. Millie O'Riley Says:

    I would like to hear more about the rational and possible benefit for a person writing their Sec. of State on the certification of eligibility matter. If it could come to some good I would like to do so.

  166. Cort/Leo:

    Further to my earlier post regarding potential legal stances a POTUS candidate similarly situated to Chester A. Arthur (British subject at birth) might take, consider the below comment left today by “Mike” at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html, followed by my Response.



    Mike on 12/12/2008 on 4:55 AM | ID: #977
    Since the 14th Amendment was ratified, it has changed the meaning of “natural born citizen.” As we know, the 14th Amendment is interpreted as providing that persons born in the US are citizens from birth, so long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and they are not required to go through the process of naturalization in order to reside here or exercise their rights as citizens. And “subject to its jurisdiction” means “not in the US on a diplomatic passport.” Because the 14th Amendment includes this fundamental proposition, the earlier jurisprudence on citizenship is largely irrelevant, no matter how your commenters may want to slice or dice it in order to “prove” that Senator Obama does not satisfy the constitutional qualification to be president. He has produced a birth certificate, and Hawaiian state officials have verified it is authentic. Game over. Because he was born here, and his father was subject to US law (e.g., not here on a diplomatic passport), it doesn’t matter whether both of his parents were citizens. The “naturalized from birth” is a nice talking point, but not one the courts are likely to adopt. Instead, “natural born citizenship” is citizenship from birth, either by place of birth under the 14th Amendment, or by the citizenship of one’s parents, as in the case of Sen. McCain (and all the business about the Canal Zone, McCain Jr’s Navy status, and the fringe on the flag is irrelevant.) Your commenters might also want to remember that the Constitution includes a proscription of ex post facto laws. We will know a lot more about how that will apply after the gay marriage lawsuits in California post Prop 8 are litigated, but I expect that will mean that once a status (whether citizenship or marriage) has been granted, it cannot be summarily revoked by a subsequent change in the law or the Constitution.

    Publius on 12/12/2008 at 6:54 AM | ID: #978 In Reply to Mike:
    Based on the fact that you are offering an argument at least nominally based on legal principals, I assume you are in favor of SCOTUS agreeing to consider the merits of Cort Wrotnowski’s Application for Emergency Stay, which is one of the matters before the court in its 10:00 a.m. conference today.

    In one of my recent comments to an article by Cort’s attorney and collaborator Leo Donofrio, I predicted that the argument you are trying to advance would eventually surface. I have my doubts as to whether it has true merit because I view it as the back end of a two-step ruse initiated by SCOTUS Justice Horace Gray in his 6-2 majority decision in Wong Kim Ark.

    Justice Gray was nominated by President Chester A. Arthur. CAA was born in Vermont in 1829. His father, William, was born in Ireland, and though he emigrated to North America at the age of 18, and spent some time early on in Canada (one of CAA’s older siblings was born there), he eventually settled in the United States. Problem is, he never got around to naturalizing until 1843 in Washington County, New York. Before that, he was a British subject. Though the official written history of CAA does not reflect it yet, this means that CAA was a British subject at birth.

    (For what it’s worth, there are sure to be those who assert that CAA was not a U.S. citizen at birth because of this circumstance, regardless of the impact of the later-adopted 14th amendment. Others seeking to avoid the effects of current U.S. laws that became law by virtue of CAA’s signature may lodge legal arguments in court that allege that CAA was not a “natural born citizen” and was thus never a valid occupant of the office of POTUS.)

    As you know, Wong Kim Ark was a decision in a dispute arising from the U.S. government refusing to allow an individual to return to the U.S. from China on the basis that he was not a U.S. citizen, and thus had no right of re-entry. The relevant holding of Justice Gray’s decision was that the condition of the U.S. Constitution as of the adoption of the 14th Amendment required that the federal government recognize as citizens, without any need for further proof or documentation, those who can show that they were born on U.S. soil.

    The way I see it, for your argument to remain above water, SCOTUS can’t now disavow the arguably wayward logic of Justice Gray’s Wong Kim Ark decision, which in light of recent developments appears tailor-made to benefit an ex-U.S. president whose U.S.-soil birth might not have been enough to bestow U.S. citizenship at the time. Rather, SCOTUS must not only embrace and preserve the logic of Wong Kim Ark, but also build upon it, to support the outcome you favor.

    As you have divined, in order to be of use to Mr. Obama now, and in order to support theories for retroactively validating the tarnished presidency of Chester A. Arthur, a SCOTUS decision in Cort Wrotnowski’s case today would need to flatly declare that at least one of the changes to the U.S. Constitution wrought by 14th Amendment was to water down the Article II, section 1 term “natural born citizen”. In other words, the Supreme Court must hold that the original meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, namely: “born on U.S. soil to parents who are themselves U.S. citizens free and clear”, has been changed so that the term now has a new meaning, to wit: “born on U.S. soil to foreign parents who are of sufficiently low rank as to allow the United States avoid the specific embarrassment of being forced to accept an actual foreign prince or princess as U.S. president.”

    Of course, you will admit that this new definition, however favorable to Mr. Obama as he prepares to assume the office of POTUS, would not necessarily redound to the benefit of the RNC. No, and unfortunately, the RNC would be forced to conclude that its most recent candidate for POTUS is not now, and never in fact was or will be, a “natural born citizen” by virtue of being born abroad. On the bright side, Bobby Jindal, the son of two non-citizen immigrant parents, will be eligible to run in 2012, so all is not lost, correct?

  167. A simple denial of the Wrotnowski petition by SCOTUS following its Conference today will not end the matter. Unless SCOTUS also offers an opinion or opinions against the “natural born citizen” argument that are either strong rebuttals or appear to be apodictic refutations thereof (which I am increasingly convinced is impossible), the American nation will not be able to put the matter to rest. Your argument’s historical/legal force is finally getting the wider understanding and audience which it deserves, and, like an earthquake generating ever-widening concentric rings of tsunamis, will keep pushing deeper into the American political psyche. As others have pointed out, Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President will return to haunt SCOTUS through lawsuits claiming legal inefficacy of his official acts, and foreign governments will hesitate to trust his signature affixed to treaties and other international documents. You have cast the light of reason onto a Constitutional issue that must now be confronted head-on, one way or another — much to your eternal credit as an attorney and genuine American patriot. Ex umbris in veritatem.

  168. I don’t understand why people think the Supreme Court would ignore the Constitution to make sure Obama gets into office. Eight years ago the Supremes DID get involved – and they certainly weren’t on the democrats’ side then. Today’s court has seven of those same justices. An arch conservative and a moderate were replaced by arch conservatives. The court is LESS democrat-friendly now than it was then.

    Eight years ago the Supreme Court made a heavily criticized ruling – and didn’t bat an eye.

    Can anyone please explain the cause the court’s radical transformation?

    As Leo said – this is not a matter that is not clear cut. Since reasonable minds can (and obviously do) differ on what NBC means, don’t accuse those who see things differently from you of disregarding their duty under the constitution.

  169. The call for a Constitutional Convention would take care of yours or any other lawsuit regarding Natural Born citizenship–the Convention could just quickly and simply remove this requirement, regardless of how the Court responds. Sounds like the mechanism to allow this happen is already in place, while the rest of the country wasn’t paying attention–according to this morning’s news reports we are only 1 or 2 states away. Wonder what other Constitutional provisions will be addressed while they’re at it. Originalism, unfortunately, is no longer the popular view for the majority of this country. This is extremely alarming.

  170. American —

    Let me make offer this suggestion: If ever you are labeled a “racist,” reply this way, “No, I’m a man (or woman) of ‘ideas!’ I hope you are too! I love ideas, and if you have any new ones, I’d like to hear them.”

    I’ve tried that, and only once did I get a new idea.

    You see, our minds are all the same, but I can’t see yours, and you can’t see mine. The only way we change each others’ minds is to talk softly and listen carefully!

    If that fails, then say this: “No, I’m not, I sell Amway!”

    I’ve tried that, too, and not even once did I get a follow-up comment! I saw the back of their jacket about as fast as they could turn and get out of sight!

  171. [Ed. Election day is just one facet of the “national election”, in fact election day voting, ie “the popular vote”, isn’t even recognized by the US Constitution. So from a purely technical point of view only the Electoral College would be equal to the “national election”. The election day voting could be said to not even be part of the “national election” if we equate “national” to “Constitutional”. I don’t make that argument, bit it seems to be the argument that you are making as to the Electoral College. It’s specious to say that the Electoral College isn’t part of the “national election” when the Electoral College is the only election referenced in our Constitution.

    But regardless, Cort’s lower court case did raise the Electoral College issue specifically, so the point you make is entirely moot as to Cort’s case.]

    I’m not sure I understand your suit. The relief you seek only relates to the national election. That’s already happened. I don’t see anything about the vote by the electors.

    That aside – in order to sue you need to state what your harm has been. You have the right to vote for anyone you want – “eligible” or not – living or dead – by writing their name in. No citizen has any right to deprive other citizens of their right to choose for whom to vote. Indeed, anyone could have still voted for Obama or McCain whether they appeared on the ballot or not.

    You didn’t state any legally cognizable harm, and you didn’t indicate any remedy that is even theoretically possible because it involves something in the past.

    [Ed. For standing in NJ, you need to read NJ Democratic Party v. Samson. Bush v. Gore is also applicable. Nobody should have their vote voided by an ineligible candidate winning the election. Also, it’s not just a voting complaint. Every citizen has the fundamental right to be Governed by a President and protected by a Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally eligible to the office.

    [Ed. Cort’s Connecticut standing is thoroughly discussed in his application which is available at the top right of this blog’s front page.]

  172. Leo: you have shown us how MONUMENTAL today’s conference decision will be. I pray SCOTUS will stay the electoral vote in time for the rest of the county (including the msm) to catch-up to your arguments.
    Good luck today.
    All my best,

  173. KElizabeth Says:

    I have seen many items recently regarding efforts early on (dated back to 2002) of then Sen. Obama’s attempts to have the Constitution amended on issues such as gun control, for instance his influencing the publications at certain Chicago law reviews (while director of the Joyce Foundation)
    to move for restricting the right to bear arms to the collective state not individuals. Then, in what looks like to me, an effort to pave the way for him to seek the office of POTUS, some connected to him have made efforts to influence courts and legislators by publishing works such as this one by Susan Herlihy as seen here: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf
    to no avail however, thus far. But from my point of view, it points to a pre meditated attempt to get elected knowingly ‘unconstitutionally ineligible.’
    Some say these connections are too weak, but I’m seeing more come out now as light is shed on the ‘muck of chicago politics’ from which he arose,
    as a favorite pundit put it. The previous comment regarding the american policy center’s statement refers to an attempt to call for a constituional convention, which could lead to the desired results for those that wish to ‘fix’ the Constitution as one Lawrence Siskind once said should be done. I only pray the truth prevail, when all said and done.
    God bless you Leo and Cort and all arbiters of truth.


  175. [Ed. The FA Manual is quite clear – not US soil – no citizenship just for being born there. Not natural born if you need a statute to clarify your basic citizenship.

    Moreover, McCain’s birth certificate says he was born in “Colon Hospital” in Colon, Panama. It doesn’t say he was born in a military hospital or on the base at all. He’s not a natural born citizen.

    McCain = born in Colon, Panama = not a natural born citizen

    McCain’s birth certificate:


    McCain’s certification of live birth:

    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/mccain%20birth.JPG ]

    ED. …But on this point the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual “…not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

    I seems to me that the DSFA Manual does not apply to those who would otherwise be Natural Born Citizens. Is the manual settled law, precident or history to be cited in any SCOTUS decision regarding NBC status ?

  176. truthseeker Says:

    [Ed. 🙂 ]

    Leo and posters:

    Thought you might enjoy this cartoon I found:


  177. Further to my earlier post you timestamed at 9:13am, and as shown below, I have sinced addressed and returned serve on the remaining issue raised by Mike at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html.



    Publius on 12/12/2008 at 8:50 AM | ID: #982 In Reply to Mike:

    You said:

    Your commenters might also want to remember that the Constitution includes a proscription of ex post facto laws. We will know a lot more about how that will apply after the gay marriage lawsuits in California post Prop 8 are litigated, but I expect that will mean that once a status (whether citizenship or marriage) has been granted, it cannot be summarily revoked by a subsequent change in the law or the Constitution.

    I say:

    To my mind, a SCOTUS decision resolving a current dispute as to who is and who is not eligible to ascend to the office of POTUS can be crafted which entirely avoids the messy subject of who is or who is not a U.S. citizen.

    While it appears to be your opinion that the U.S. should embrace the logic and the holding of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and rule against Cort Wrotnowski on that basis, I believe it is well within the power of SCOTUS to ignore the entire Wong Kim Ark episode as irrelevant because relating to an entirely different issue. The question at issue (is one born in the U.S. to two non-citizens nevertheless a U.S. citizen?) in Wong Kim Ark clearly did not require SCOTUS to take a position one way or the other as to the meaning of the Article II, section 1 term “natural born citizen”. Therefore there is no legal basis to assert that the Supreme Court would have to overturn the related holding in Wong Kim Ark (changes wrought to the U.S. Constitution by the language of the 14th Amendment require the U.S. to recognize the citizenship of one born in the U.S. to two non-resident citizens) in order to conclude that the Article II, section 1 term “natural born citizen” excludes anyone not born to two U.S. citizens (Mr. Obama), as well as anyone not born on U.S. soil (Mr. McCain).

    In other words, a decision along the lines of what Messrs. Donofrio and Wrotnowski are suggesting is fully consistent with a parallel conclusion that each of the major party candidates is now, and has always been, a U.S. citizen. Such a decision would therefore not implicate the Constitution’s ex post facto in the way you have suggested.

    Do you have any other explanation as to why a SCOTUS decision in favor of Mr. Wrotnowski would necessary implicate the Constitution’s ex post facto prohibition?

  178. Any word from SCOTUS yet?

  179. Sorry Leo and Cort—The following is a corrected sentence from my just-previous comment (timestamped 11:00, awaiting moderation):

    Therefore there is no legal basis to assert that the Supreme Court would have to overturn the related holding in Wong Kim Ark (changes wrought to the U.S. Constitution by the language of the 14th Amendment require the U.S. to recognize the citizenship of one born in the U.S. to two non-citizen residents) in order to conclude that the Article II, section 1 term “natural born citizen” excludes anyone not born to two U.S. citizens (Mr. Obama), as well as anyone not born on U.S. soil (Mr. McCain).

  180. Cort and Leo,

    Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
    Oh, to be a fly-on-the-wall at SCOTUS today!

  181. [Ed. All rumours of a decision in Cort’s case are false. The blog which started this was notified and refused to call the Supreme Court to verify.]

    it looks like Cort’s case has been ….[Ed. snip – no false rumors allowed.]

  182. Actually, scratch that. Looks like it might be fake. Docket hasn’t been updated.

  183. Leo,

    Have you heard anything substantive re: a national constitutional convention? I can find no reliable resources to back this claim on World Net Daily.

    Please let us know if you find out anything. Thanks!

  184. It can’t be just a happy coincicence that all previous presidents (but Arthur) were natural-born.

    So who was it that made sure? And how did the system fail this time around? Why did it fail just this once?

  185. Leo,
    Please read into this…speculate for us. They are going to keep us in suspense over the weekend? Why?

  186. An explanation for the Supreme Court to wait until the last possible moment (Monday morning) before issuing anything is just in case Team Obama were to submit some documentation (on his birth etc. ) between the time the Court makes its issuance and the Electors commence their actions on Monday. In other words, over the weekend Team Obama could release some documentation which might tend to undermine a basis for the issuance of the Court.

    A real chess match!

  187. Ok, what’s your feeling about this, Leo?

  188. […] Per Leo’s latest posting: [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are […]

  189. Leo: However this turns out, will you please give us your experiences (including how you were contacted for the decision) today?

    [ed. I won’t be contacted. It will be made public before I know about it most likely.]

  190. Leo,

    I have discussed this a bit with you offline, but now feel it would be to everyone’s advantage to present it to a wider audience.

    Over the past few weeks, I have tried to interpret the phrase “natural born Citizen” as if it were just plain English. I have asked myself, “What would this phrase mean to a reasonable person at the time at which the Constitution was written?”

    I have used the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and the letter from John Jay to George Washington in which he suggested that this “natural born Citizen” requirement be included in the Constitution. He wrote:

    Note: He underlined “born” and did not use a hyphen between “natural” and “born”.

    My work has led me to the following:

    Interpretation. The natural born Citizens of the United States are those particular born Citizens that one would expect to be the most numerous kind (with respect to the degree to which they belong or have belonged to, or owe or have owed allegiance to, a foreign country), by reason that this eventuality would be in accord with the essential nature, function or mode of being of the United States.

    This interpretation is a bit layered and complex, so I would like to say a few words to clarify it.

    The word “natural”, as distinct from other words such as “normal”, “typical” and “regular”, deals with essence. In this case, we have an understanding of what is the essential nature of the United States (i.e. that which is incapable of removal without destroying the United States). This understanding of the essence of the United States leads us to have expectations regarding various things. Specifically, it leads us to expect which type of “born Citizen” would be the average, common, or most numerous kind (i.e. those which we would call “natural”). John Jay proposed this criterion of “natural born Citizen” out of his concern regarding foreigners. So, here when we say “most numerous kind”, we mean “kind” with respect to the degree to which a “born Citizen” is or was a foreigner.

    It is interesting to me that what is mentioned in “The Law of Nations” parallels what I have needed to use to apply this interpretation in order to deduce necessary conditions for one to be a natural born Citizen. Specifically, in both case, we are discussing the matter of what is the essence of the United States (e.g. from the “The Law of Nations”: “As the society cannot exist…” and “…to its own preservation”).

    I have applied my interpretation to obtain the following:

    Necessary Conditions. For a given person to be a “natural born Citizen of the United States”, that person must satisfy the following conditions:

    The person is currently a Citizen of the United States.

    The person became a Citizen of the United States at birth.

    The person was born in the United States.

    Both parents of the person were Citizens of the United States when that person was born.

    I have published an essay on this titled “What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?” (see http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn). For a synopsis, see http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htm.

    (Everyone) Please take a look at this and let me know what you think.

    As always, thank you for all your work on this.


    P.S. I have sent a letter to Justice Scalia to let him know about this essay.

  191. There was disheartening news out of Colorado which suggests that letters and e-mails to that state’s electors may be creating confusion. Some probably argue “birth certificate”/Berg allegations. And maybe some argue SOLELY “natural born citizen” as SOLE grounds, but the muddying of different theories of the case — in the popular mind and in the electors’ minds — continues.


  192. Leonard D. Says:

    A Natural-Born citizen is born to U.S. citizen parents, native born or naturalized, under national jurisdiction barring any possible foreign dual citizenship.

    International law, and U.S. law, bars jus soli nationality to foreign born children of military and ambassador personnel. No dual nationality . . . natural born . . . this exemption goes back to Common Law.

    Naturalization is a statutory process revoking nationalities gained by blood or soil, thereby acquiring or leaving only U.S. citizenship.

    By these definitions, McCain was natural-born.

    [Ed. McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama. Not a natural born citizen. See his BC below…


  193. This is amazing: Not a word from MSM. If this were about a hollywood love-child, they’d be all over it! Funny, this story has everything a writer would want: Mystery, Graft, Intrique…don’t forget…SUSPENSE. Glad your blog isn’t a pay-per-view.

  194. Is there any precedent for staying the Electoral College? How are you sure that SCOTUS is able to issue a stay?

  195. Leo,
    When this is all over, you deserve to do what you love. Thanks for all of your effort. We needed you to speak up for all of us (and there are more than anyone knows). You have done an amazing thing, inspired us all!

    If you do go for that “indie minor league rock star” thing, let us know where your playing and perhaps we can all be your patriotic “groupies”. lol

    Really, in all seriousness…you have a gift with words and it sounds like you are very musical so go for it. God gave you all of your gifts to be used, just be true to Him and yourself! The world of music, I believe, is a wonderful way to grab hold of people’s better selves if done right.

    Seriously, when your ready, let us hear what you do. You have a great group of people and friends here! Again, God Bless You!

  196. Leo, Please let us know if there is any chance that a stay could come sometime today, even though the dicision to hear the case or not would not come until Monday.

    I was reminded that it was December 12,2000 that the SC issued a stay concerning Bush v Gore. Just wondering if there could be a posibility of one comeing on this December 12th to stop the Electoral College from voting on Monday. God Bless you and Cort!

  197. John Fleming Says:

    The Scotusblog has a statement regarding totodays court orders that two cases were accepted by the Court, neither of which are the Wrontnowski case, but there is nothing yet posted on the SCOTUS website.

    How could it be that Scotusblog has info that has yet been formally published to the courts websites?

  198. John Fleming Says:

    Miscellaneus Orders are now posted to the SCOTUS website . . .no word yet on Wrotnowski


  199. The Misc Court Orders are up for today and Cort’s case is not on it:(


  200. bob strauss Says:

    what does it mean when the conference is closed and the clerks are excluded? does it mean that some clerks can’t be trusted? looks as if they are serious about this case. Monday is looming large. what time do the electors meet?

    [Ed. it doesn’t mean anything other than that’s the way they do it. Don’t read into it. It’s traditional.]

  201. I’ve seen this document referenced here several times
    but as yet I’ve not seen any comment from you on it, Leo.

    Could you please?

    My comments are as follows:
    Footnote 2 slipped my attention. Clearly you do not agree with Footnote 2 in any respect. A difference of legal opinion here.

    Footnote 5 skirts around the dual allegiance issue without getting into specifics, although the issue of foreign citizenship derived via paternity is mentioned.

    Footnote 8 is certainly at odds with your interpretation. You see “native-born” as a subset of “natural-born”. You say that the difference between the two is limited to a single item: the eligibility to be president – otherwise they are identical.

  202. I read on one site that you: “claim” to be a Poker Champion.

    [Ed. They can check the World Series of Poker official web site. I am a WSOP Circuit even ring bearer. I won the first ever official WSOP Turbo No Limit Hold Em Championship vs. 607 people at Ceasars in AC. A few weeks later I won a Venetian Deep Stacks event in Vegas.



    Google “Leo Donofrio” and poker.]

    Out of all the lies someone could waste their time with, they think you might’ve gone and put up a fake web page listing poker champions, and created this whole persona around it. What! Bah! Hah! Ha!

    [Ed. snip about other litigants.]

    I haven’t received a reply back from the Electors Commission Board in my state concerning my email, but as long as someone there read it, I’ve done my duty of infecting them with Truth and I know they know a Citizen of Wisconsin knows they potentially are taking part in an illegal activity if they vote.

    I don’t know if you ever looked at the cartoon concerning your argument I put on my blog…Stop by my blog and check it/them out.

  203. Leo,

    I am very concerned about the suggested timing of the release of a decision regarding Cort’s case.

    If a favorable decision is made and released on Monday, assuming the ‘Stay’ is included in the decision, how can it be released in time to prevent electoral college voting throughout the country?

  204. KElizabeth Says:

    Does the SCOTUS ever post orders twice in one day? or is this all we can expect til Monday?


  205. [Ed. What good is your vote if you vote for somebody else and a candidate who is no eligible wins? What good is your vote if you vote for a major candidate and they win and are later deemed not to be eligible? In either case, your vote is voided. As is your right to live in a Country governed by a Constitutionally mandated President.]

    In your application to the SCOTUS you said:

    “Appellant’s fundamental right to vote for a candidate who will not be disqualified after the election is now threatened by the inclusion on New Jersey ballots of three ineligible candidates.”

    You can vote for anyone you want by merely writing them in.

    Did you mean to say that your right to prevent everyone else from voting for someone who will not be qualified after the election was threatened? I don’t think citizens have that right.

  206. U.S. Supreme Court Conference of December 12
    December 12th, 2008

    The U.S. Supreme Court held a conference on the morning of December 12, and in the afternoon announced it had accepted two new cases. Both of them are disputes about commercial matters. The Court said nothing about any further pending cases concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility, but on Monday when the “refused” list is released to the public, any such cases will probably be on the list.


  207. I know you’ve been over this, but the following quote was found on the page linked to by

    Arlen Williams Says:
    December 12, 2008 at 5:21 am


    quote from that link:

    “BTW, the SCOTUS has not denied Donofrio’s NJ case, only his request for a stay while they confer over the Wrotnowski, CT case, Dec. 12.”

    The request for a stay was denied, and SCOTUS is finished with it. Refers back to NJ from there, right? Just didn’t want someone to see the quote on that page and wonder all over again.

  208. Joe E. SHeldon Says:

    The SCOTUS Orders List for 12-12-08 shows only two instances of certs being granted. Cort’s case is not mentioned so it looks like next week …

  209. truPatriot Says:


    I’m worried today. I have to tell you, that you are the first legal counselor, I’ve had this much faith. I appreciate your honesty and ethics, and will continue to rely on your logic and substantial research for a positive outcome. I know you really don’t accept compliments easily, but you are truly a gift and hero for so many. There are not enough True Patriots out there. Thank you, and please thank your parents for raising a stand up guy.

    Again we thank you.

  210. Leo,
    I saw that a couple other cases were granted certiorio today (do not know if I am using the lingo correctly). I hope this is not bad news for Cort’s case.

  211. In the 1st paragraph under Presidental Precedent, you may want to change “In their wisdom, they recognized … ” to:
    “In their wisdom, the Founders recognized … ”

    Otherwise it seems to refer to “every post grandfather clause President”.

  212. [Ed. Obama lost his UK citizenship by way of section 87.2 of the Kenyan Constitution in 1963.]

    Although Barack Obama claims his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982, there is by way of the British Nationality Act, a good possibility Obama retained British citizenship as a British Overseas Citizen despite Kenyan’s independence in 1963. It would not be true then, that he only held British citizenship up until 1963.

    “In 1963, when Kenya achieved independence from Britain, a class of British citizens cropped up, called Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs).”

    “Sources of British Overseas Citizens

    CUKCs before 1983
    As British Overseas citizenship is a “mop-up” category for CUKCs who did not acquire British citizenship or BOTC in 1983, there are many ways in which someone may have acquired that status.

    These include:

    persons holding CUKC by connection with a former colony or protectorate who did not acquire that country’s citizenship on independence. This applied particularly to some former colonies, such as Kenya, that did not grant citizenship to all CUKCs born or naturalised in that colony.”


    Obama states he held British Kenyan citizenship from birth. It is highly possible, if born in Kenya, that his first and foremost citizenship is “British Kenyan”, since his mother was not of age yet to transfer U.S. citizenship to him by law. He would have travelled to Pakistan during Martial law with that citizenship, and not his U.S. citizenship if he also possesses the latter. In a nutshell, Barack Obama would have become both a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain in 1963. He allowed expired the Kenyan citizenship. By the British Nationality Act, there is a good chance he still holds British citizenship as a British Overseas Citizen (BOTCs formerly known as CUKCs prior to 1983). He can choose, when traveling abroad, to either present his U.S. or British passports. He is not required in most countries to present both, as customs would not be aware he has two passports from different countries. In which case, he would be considered to have dual citizenship. It disqualifies him of natural born status because of split loyalties, and it does not seem he took an US Oath of Allegiance if he became a Naturalized U.S. citizen. He may have traveled to Pakistan in 1981 using a BOTC passport when Pakistan Martial law forbade visitation by U.S. citizens.

    Here are compelling examples of how dual citizens exhibit conflict of interest detrimental to the U.S.A.


  213. Joe E. SHeldon Says:

    To: Opey –

    I’m afraid your “newsvine” website isn’t so free of censorship after all. Your post has been removed.

  214. Does this mean that no news is bad news? That the SCOTUS will most likely deny Cort’s case as your was without the benefit of an explanation?

  215. Well by your own admission your first brief was problematic and you knew you were at a disadvantage, and you were worried about the case turning on hastily prepared work.

    Basically you needed to hit on an inside straight and it didn’t happen!

    Now it appears that you have both a flush and a natural straight working
    and McCain and Obama need to hit the inside straight.

    One thing is for certain though, both McCain and Obama have a “pair”!

    I think Obama may be bluffing.

    Waiting to see that last card turned over is driving us nuts, it’s OK though since we are already considered nuts! (we know better)

    This reminds me of the drama of the 2000 election without the press coverage!

  216. Leo your my hero!

  217. Leo, on Investigating Obama blog, a poster named Anonymous: wrote that Obama’s lawyers Kirkland and Ellis have submitted a lawsuit saying the Natural Born Citizen is no legal to today life. Do you know if it is true???

    Here is the link https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3305538081521812448&postID=9170737552171888798

  218. Leo
    I read on another website that your case for Cert has not been denied. Is it possible that just your stay has been denied and they will handle this as if you were requesting Cert?
    Could they then join your case with Cort’s?

  219. Leonard D. Says:

    The Canal Zone, including Colon, was a U.S. possession or protectorate.

    [Ed. False. Colon is a major city in Panama. His BC says he was born in Colon Hospital, Panama.]


  220. [Ed. McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Panama. Not a nbc.]

    His BC

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=348 ]

    To Leonard D.:

    I agree with you that McCain is Natural Born because even though born in Panama of U.S Citizens, McCain’s father had not given up his U.S. citizenship and was on government business. In contrast to the DSFA Manual, it seems to me that custom, framer’s belief, history, and the [Law of Nations, § 217. Children born in the armies of the state] would be the governing factors.


  221. Just a thought…While I have not read the book myself, from what I have read about the book it seems to me that Barack Obama’s Memoir, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” gives further insight as to why the Framers of the Constitution were so careful in making the distinction of “Natural Born Citizen”. Divided loyalties.

    The issue is not the fact that his father was black & his mother was white, but rather his father was Kenyan and his mother was American. In his search to learn more about his dad and find community with his side of the family, a bond was created which is completely understandable. But if push came to shove and America was at odds with Kenya for some reason, how would he handle the conflict as President of the US. He has personal ties to the other country that run deep. This is not meant as a slam on him…again, it’s completely understandable.

    We as a country cannot afford to have those kind of deep personal ties to another country attached to the Commander in Chief. Having this connection does not make him any less of an American, but it does cloud the issue. Hence, the reason for the NBC distinction in the Constitutional POTUS eligibility requirements.

    While some may argue that Senator Obama never really knew his father therefore these “ties” are non-existent. I beg to differ. A child who is estranged from one or both of his/her parents still has a sense of connection with him/her that’s difficult to explain. There is a pull there…as evidenced in this memoir.

  222. Leo,

    Thank you for all you have been doing for truth and trying to uphold the Constitution. I have been browsing around the orders of the SCOTUS, and I don’t know if I am just reading into it for hope in this matter. I know your stay application was denied, however, in the orders page of Dec.8 which included yours it seems that the order for the stay is under the heading of “Orders in Pending cases.” Could that mean your entire case has not been dismissed or completely denied since its still under that heading of pending cases–and really only the stay has been denied? Could SCOTUS be treating your case ,too, as a Writ of Certiorari / or Writ of Mandamus –which has not been denied or dismissed yet? And maybe why no comments yet from SCOTUS regarding your stay denial. I was thinking this ,since I noted other headings do say Certiorari Denied, Mandamus Denied, Certiorari Granted , Habeas Denied, Rehearings Denied, etc.

    Again, I thank you and also Cort for all the work you have done! I will continue to pray for you and Cort.

  223. kittycat77 Says:

    Leo, whichever way this goes, I’m thankful to have learned from you on your blog. It’s truly educational to many of us. I sure have hope, though, that this is going to go well.

    But I HATE the waiting. Of course, I have to have patience. It seems that last Friday yours came out in the late afternoon that it was denied. Do you remember it this way? I may be incorrect here. I just looked at the SCOTUS blog and they don’t have much on there like they did last Friday. Could this be a sign yours has been discussed a long time?

  224. If someone doesn’t follow the Constitution, can it be considered a crime? The Constitution says that only a natural born citizen may become President. So until Obama gets sworn in, he hasn’t technically broken any laws (though the intent is obviously there).

    Not saying this will happen or anything, but if Fitzgerald wanted to, could he indict Obama after he gets sworn in? Would Fitzgerald have the authority?

  225. Just wanted to pop in here and let give you, and Cort, my gratitude, Leo.
    This American family appreciates you guys. First place I head to each morning is “naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com”. As I have said in other comments this has been more fascinating than any John Grisham book I have ever read.

    Whatever way it turns out you, and Cort, absolutely ROCK as my fellow American citizens. Wish we could clone you guys!!! 🙂

  226. Joe E. SHeldon Says:

    TO: FS and Ed.:

    Our Presumptive President (Mr. O.) did not necessarily lose his Kenya citizenship automatically at age 21 since the Kenya Constitution Sec. 98 (7) has this apparent “out” clause for someone wishing to extend the disclaiming of Kenya citizenship considerably into the future:

    “Provision may be made by or under an Act of Parliament for extending
    beyond the specified date the period in which a person may make a
    renunciation of citizenship, take an oath or make or register a declaration
    for the purposes of this section, and, if provision is so made, that person
    shall not cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date but shall
    cease to be a citizen upon the expiration of the extended period if he
    has not then made the renunciation, taken the oath or made or registered
    the declaration, as the case may be.”

    Since we really have little solid, verified information about his dates, legal status, citizenship swearing, etc., I’d think that he probably has the above option open to him should he choose to use it. Certainly the Kenyan populace would love it! Seems a tad fuzzy in any event.

  227. To Francis Daniel @ December 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Semper Fi


  228. kittycat77 Says:

    MTC, you write: “I know your stay application was denied, however, in the orders page of Dec.8 which included yours it seems that the order for the stay is under the heading of “Orders in Pending cases.” Could that mean your entire case has not been dismissed or completely denied since its still under that heading of pending cases–and really only the stay has been denied?”

    I was asking that question too. It listed Leo’s case under Orders in Pending cases. I was trying to figure that out.

  229. Leo,

    Thank you for all your good efforts to uphold the Constitution. This has been such a learning experience and I hope that somehow you or others can fill this void that we, as American citizens, have in truly understanding what the Constitution means to us as a nation.

    Now I have a question. At the Supreme Court website, I was looking at their calendar. It shows that the next available days they have set aside for oral arguments are January 12th, 13th and 14th. Does this mean that if they issue an order setting Cort’s case for oral arguments it will not be until then? Do you think they would take this into consideration on whether to act to do anything to stay the meeting of the electors? I hope these are not silly questions!!

  230. Kathy Says:

    Kathy, it is covered if you follow the link. This is not my Idea but an editor who I have sent links to, see at end. I also have sent him some stuff that Leo has. My first contact was after I had written him back and asked why he gave it no coverage. I can paste that and will if requested. Rather follow this link and you will seed how the SEED that Leo planted is starting to grow. Will it bear fruit, be bare whatever. Without planting the seed nothing will grow. Leo is a planter if you will so to speak.

    the other link is by him and he is just getting it off the ground and knew if he told me I would post it on Leo’s Blog. He is another Leo in my opinion.


  231. I posted a link very early this morning, but it became disabled due to an unforeseen circumstance. I’m re-posting my previous post here with the NEW REPLACEMENT link:

    I’ve been working at bringing the news of tomorrow’s SCOTUS event to the MSM (alright, who laughed?). I’ve discovered that MSNBC has a sister site called, Newsvine.com, which allows for “publishing” of articles by everyday people without editorial interference. I just today posted an article that I hope will prove beneficial. It ends with a link to a webpage that I hope also assists in clarifying the facts. Naturally, it’s all always a ‘work-in-progress;’ and I continue, as a complete novice, to improve upon it.

    It all starts here:


  232. Anchorage1960 Says:

    This is out there.
    Half of Obama (the citizen mother’s half) is a “natural born citizen”, the other half of Obama is not. Who’s to say which half of Obama the people voted for? We have no idea. If half of the people voted for the citizen mother’s half, the “natural born half”, and the remainder for the non-citizen father’s half, in all fairness, half of the votes are legit, half are not. If such was the case, there would not be enough votes to win the election because the non-citizen father’s side votes would be tossed out….that being said, the electoral college cannot be sure who the voters were voting for..the mom or the dad side.

    If we split Obama down the middle, half would qualify, half would not.


  233. Leo,

    Your case still lives on, along with Cort’s and the easiest to dismiss outright, the Berg case.

    You were denied a STAY, to delay the announcement (possibly this Sunday) and allow the movement of the Guard into cities around the country. Martial Law is a real possibility if things go South quickly so measures need to be in place.

    The Supreme Court may have all the evidence they need to rule on the cases without ever going to a public trial. The evidence is contained in the release statement every American signs when they request Naturalization, Passports, or to obtain a Security Clearance. These supporting documents for the services can be shared with other government agencies who have an investigative need to review. The Justices would have what they needed within the same day they filed the request form. It would not take an order from the SC, only a request to the appropriate agencies holding the information.

    Do you seriously think they would not share this “released” information to the Justices?

    The legal delaying tactics used by the SC are to buy the country the time to prepare for a ruling. All the cases are still active in one form or another.

    As a Lawyer Leo, you know that if you have knowledge of a crime in progress and ignore the crime, it is a serious matter. In this case it could be tantamount to treason under the Constitution if they refused to rule on such cases before them.

    Lady Justice might be hampered by a blindfold, but the nine Justices have their eyes wide open. Their only consideration now is that America is ready to survive their rulings.

    Have you noticed any strange nondescript vehicles parked in your neighborhood? Keep your bags packed and get ready to be taken into protective custody Minuteman.

  234. Joe The Blogger Says:


    Do the Electors of the Electoral College have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? If so, I’m sure there must be a significant number of them that are unsure, at the very least, as to the definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’. The ‘Electors’ would have standing to make an application to SCOTUS asking for clarification of the ‘NBC’ issue, as it relates to the candidates in this election.

    If you would be willing to draft an application to SCOTUS requesting a ‘Declaration stating which, if any, of the candidates in the Presidential election of 2008, satisfy the Constitutional requirement to be a ‘Natural Born Citizen”, then I believe some of the Electors would be willing to submit the application, under their own names. Obviously, they would have to be contacted, over this weekend, with the proposal and they may need to be reassured that they would not be putting themselves at risk of having an order for costs made against them – a class action could help in this regard. If this was done then it would have, at least, the effect of concentrating the minds of the ‘Electors’ on this crucial issue.

    Surely, in these unique and perilous circumstances, SCOTUS, could be persuaded to take this matter, immediately, upon themselves without requiring the ‘Electors’ to ‘jump through the hoops’ of the lower Courts. The reality is that no Court other than SCOTUS can make a definitive Declaration on this matter.

  235. Leo-
    If they were going to stay the electoral college…why would they wait until the day of to do so? It’s curious to me and seems rather inconvienent.

    And does anybody know the current status of Berg’s case? Did the FEC ever give the court that full BC from the Hawaiian vault–wasn’t that supposed to be in the court’s hands by now? I know for Leo’s case he doesn’t need the BC, but I would think that if the court had asked for it and it was not given by the deadline that the justices might weigh that into the equation also. Not sure…? Just wondering out loud…and now it seems I have all weekend to do so.

  236. Leo,

    Please give us an update. Did anything happen at court today?

  237. Hi Leo,

    Not sure if someone has already sent you this article by Lawrence B. Solum. The article is about McCain but the author appears to interpret the definition of natural born citizen .



    …”What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the
    eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general
    agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen…”

    I know the 1790 Act was changed in 1795 but the Author makes a good point about interpreting the text.

    …”On the other hand, the language of the 1790 Act might be interpreted
    differently. The statute is not explicitly phrased in declaratory terms: The
    phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens” might have reflected
    the understanding that the children of American citizens on foreign soil
    were not actually “natural born,” but could be TREATED as if they were by
    granting them a legal status that was otherwise identical to that held by
    those who were “natural born.” On this interpretation, McCain would not
    qualify as a natural born citizen even if a statute had conferred citizenship
    upon him at birth. Such a conclusion is based on the conventional and widely shared assumption that Congress lacks power to alter the meaning of the Constitution through legislation…”


    i am going to go and watch the day the earth stood still. this should be a nice spirit uplifting movie compared to this dreary situation we are in with our candidates not being eligable to run for office and having wasted all of our time and perpetrating fraud based on the constitution. and yes it is that as they cost america money in doing so.

    please make the pain stop uuuggghhhhh

  239. If it is determined that McCain is not eligible to be POTUS, should he have to pay back the Federal matching campaign funds that he received?

  240. Only 2 more states are needed to call a constitutional Convention!


    Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced
    budget. But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of
    government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real
    money or even eliminate gun or property rights. So what may look like a good idea to the legislators driving this effort – all Republicans – will
    certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences – at the very least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget – while destroying what vestiges of liberty the government still allows.

  241. Steve Says:
    December 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    If it is determined that McCain is not eligible to be POTUS, should he have to pay back the Federal matching campaign funds that he received?

    No the Senate would, since they anointed him as eligible to run in a non-binding Senate resolution. I bet they will wish they missed that vote.

  242. Leo,

    Previously in these comments you raised the point:

    “The distinction is fine, but clear… in the treatise there is no doubt that a nbc has two parent citizens and is born in the land of his parents, it’s just that such a person is also called a “native”.”

    As you note, there can be some confusion because the word “native”
    is used in different ways.

    From the definitions of “natural”, “native” and “vernacular” given in
    Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

    I believe, here in “Laws of Nature”, by “native citizen” it is meant “one who belongs to a country by nature” not (as you correctly noted) “one who is a Citizen by reason that they were born in that particular country”.

    I believe, the meaning that I have proposed here for “native” in this specific context of the paragraph of “Laws of Nature” that you have quoted
    would be consistent with the description given there of what constitutes a “natural born Citizen”.


  243. a previous comment read:


    The feeling I get in this situation is that a denial of Cort’s case by the SC tomorrow would put the final nail in the coffin of all hope to get the Judicial Branch to address the BHO eligibility issue. Nothing else can put a stop to the Electors voting in four days and choosing BHO as the next President of the United States.

    The out going Executive Branch has no say in this deal, and the Legislative Branch is 2/3rd Democrat and would never stand against their idol. What’s left?

    The Armed Forces!

    to which you say:

    [Ed. God forbid. The SCOTUS is the end of the line, one way or the other. ]

    is this not our rubicon?

    but i say, not the SCOTUS, rather, it’s the constitution, or at least our inherited understanding of its rightful place. Yet can we not equally inherit misunderstanding of it as well, of what constitutes our nation? can we not become the heirs of inherent uncertainty and ambiguity, or why not outright misapplication? And this question, what constitutes this republic if it is not what we call ‘the constitution’?

    if the constitution is in fact not what we are constituted by, then why call it by such a misleading name? call it something else.

    and if we say that we indeed adhere to the constitution, not just in name, but in our very principle, substance, and make-up, as in, “look here, this is what constitutes this republic…” then, i for one would like to take a little more time to process our current condition, regardless of whether or not we get the momentary relief from SCOTUS.

    my appreciation to you lies in your frankness. it’s quite refreshing. moderating in the fashion you have, by being attentive to this board and availing yourself without visible pretension, a single citizen feels all-of-a-sudden unmarginalized. i think others would agree, and feel the same as i do.

    so i do hope that this pause for discussion will continue, because it needs to – (without objecting to your constitutional right to play poker, of course).

  244. The Secretary of State will be ordered to not certify the election.

    If this were to happen I see no option other than canceling the 2008 election with prejudice for the parties involved. I hope the DNC and RNC have deep pockets if they are ordered to pay donors back. Sanctions could include the DNC and RNC ordered to stand down for a special election, while criminal investigations are ongoing.

    Co-Conspirators would be referred to Justice for grand jury action and possible prosecution for misconduct or worse.

    A new “special” election could be scheduled for around 6 April 2009.

    President Bush and his appointments would be asked to stay on until the new inauguration scheduled for June. The Electoral College would be ordered to meet in May to vote for eligible candidates.

    I have to admit this is a dream scenario and yet it is our best bet to clean out the current two-party monopoly, ensuring support for the Constitution.

  245. Kathy,

    The New Media Journal “NMJ has moved a lot if not all the stuff they have written about Natural Born Citizen NBC and a new Constitutional Amendment in that regard to this web site.

    Note I have nothing to do with it in any way other than to read it. The editor has been promt in his replies to me and over time changed from no coverage to quite a bit of coverage on NBC.


    I also heard from Congressman Linder of GA my home state a little befor 5:00 PM today Friday 12-12-08 Mr. Linder confirmed the post on Leo’s Blog was in fact his post.


  246. Hey guys…JMHO but I think SCOTUS is going to want the “process” to work and not interfer until there is a solid crime brought to them. [ed snip insult…] If they wait till Monday/Tues the electors will have voted and there will be no case. Once the ACTUAL election has happened then fraud has officially been committed thus will be the time for this type discovery. I sure hope I’m wrong…If i’m not let’s hope that process works. Deadline in 20 Jan 09. Please, Please, Please Leo…Don’t quit. Please assist with the up and coming cases. You have stepped up as the leader of this nobel cause. Our country needs you.
    Thank you Leo!

  247. Hey, Leo, when you go to SCOTUS cases still listed as pending (writ portion assuming for yours) you find your filing….so why do you keep saying that you are finished/done when there is still the possibility that your case may be combined with Leo’s as we see that others have been combined recently? Don’t know if Berg’s could also somehow be joined with yours and Cort’s as well – somewhat generally similar, but don’t know how Court combines filings.

  248. jbjd Says:

    December 11, 2008 at 9:05 pm
    [Ed. I agree with the reader. Although the press is also to blame. And how many of you just gave McCain a pass on this issue too?]

    I have written to my SOS and got the same reply as Leo. I have neither the money or skill sets to much more than make folks aware of what is going on. While I have a spinal Cord Injury that makes typing a labor I do in fact manage to get stuff typed and misspeled etc.. but I do try.

    I think also if you will follow that link that what differs is that the process is done before a ballot is printed. Saving taxpayers that expense also.

    I am not a lawyer but I have worked with goverment at diffrent levels and know that the States can have laws stronger than at the Federal level but not less than. Need not be one or the other but both.

    I think I do get your point though that if you fail to pull the trigger you will not hit any thing.


  249. Leo, the work you and Cort (and no doubt MANY assistants!) have done for all of your countrymen is admirable! The left may be really upset with what you are doing, but they should be as grateful to you as we all are, since what COULD happen if “the Messiah” is put in illegally is much worse than they could imagine.

    You are the heroes to so many, please never forget it!

  250. Leo,

    I have asked this question in many online places, with no educated answer.

    Have you and Cort considered that your issue may not yet be ripe? The Constitution does not prevent us from voting for an ineligible candidate – it just says that he can’t be the POTUS.

    So, it seems from the point of view of the SCOTUS, there may not yet be a Constitutional issue. As the Electoral College could still technically vote for an eligible POTUS – although that is unlikely – nothing untoward has so far happened. Why would they grant a stay for something that might happen?

    They may be waiting for the Electoral College vote or the required Congressional validation, before they can legally step in, per the Constitution. Perhaps the stay request should have been on the Inauguration?

    I think that is why they are reserving granting cert in your case, but it may just be my wishful thinking.

    I do so admire you and thank you for all I have learned in the last month!

  251. This is the slightest bit tin-foil hatted of me to speculate, but come on Leo we’re entitled to some tea leaf reading to lighten the mood. (Actually if you read the linked blog post, it concludes with a very sensible proposal for rectifying the vital issue you’ve done such a great job bringing to the fore):

    It has been reported that the Obama’s have been denied a reasonable sounding request to move in to the Blair House before January 5th to facilitate his children’s school attendance. The Blair House is essentially the White House’s guest house– it’s located just across the street– into which incoming presidents have traditionally been invited to move five days before January 20th inaugurals.

    Could it be that the Bush Administration suspects it is possible that Senator Obama’s Electoral College selection will be derailed before the January 6th counting of the votes as a result of the natural-born citizen Supreme Court petitions and/or other developments (Blagojevich)? Could it be that Bush, no stranger to electoral uncertainty, doesn’t wish to make such a traumatic possibility even more difficult by having the office snatched from the presumed president-elect (lower case) while he appears to be a president-in-waiting living in an official residence just a skip and a jump from the Oval Office? Can’t you picture the stand-off in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue should the people’s choice be denied entry past the White House gate after getting so close…

    This could all get very banana republic even without such a scene….

    The full story:

  252. Leo,

    Is it any sign at all that they are holding the decision until monday? You could probably argue either way but was wanting to get your view on the situation. Thanks for everything

  253. I have contacted our Florida Secretary of State three times and have received no reply. I simply asked him to let me know who is responsible for verifying candidates constitutional qualifications before placing their names on the Florida ballots. Of course, I know the answer. Our Sec. of State does not want to inform anyone that it is his responsibility. I wrote our Governor Crist and asked him to respond to my quetions since Sec. Browning did not respond to my three letters. Have not received a response from our Governor either. I may be in Tallahassee on Monday along with others to greet our Electoral College members as they arrive to cast their votes. Hope folks in other states do the same. God Bless Leo, Cort, and Orly for all you are doing!

  254. Janet (above) asks: “If they [SCOTUS] were going to stay the electoral college…why would they wait until the day of to do so? It’s curious to me and seems rather inconvienent.”

    A reason to wait until the last possible moment is that were SCOTUS to issue something today vis a vis the Electoral College, in the interim (this weekend) Team Obama could conceivable release some documentation (re birth etc.) or do or say something which might undercut, undermine, or complicate the SCOTUS decision or position. I believe SCOTUS KNOWS what it is up against and must, unfortunately, proceed strategically. This is what Team Obama has done to this nation. This is a chess match.

  255. I would say the greatest fraud perpetrated in the history of mankind, is crime enough for the Justices to act upon.

    Obama as a Harvard trained, Constitutional lawyer knew exactly what he was doing.

  256. Leo,
    No matter what happens, you have served your country well by having had the courage and tenacity to see this through. Also, great work on Chester Arthur as a bonus! I appreciate how you’ve taken the high road in this and have not resorted to character attacks — that is such a rarity anymore and is noteworthy when seen.

    May God bless you.


  257. For those interested in the Constitutional Convention issue, Mrs. Schlafly gives a good synopsis of what is at stake.

    Also, this is currently unfolding in Ohio as we speak and you can follow it at this site:

    Furthermore, some of you may be interested in
    proposed by Obama in 2007. Research it for yourself.

  258. Leo,
    Will you be keeping a poker or rock-n-roll blog? 🙂 We’ve kind of all been like family here and it will be strange not “seeing” everyone.

  259. [Ed. The sginle most important underlying basis is the Article 6 Section 3 oath of office for each State’s Secretary of State to uphold the Constitution. What does that actually mean to the head of elections in each state? If not to make sure the Constitution is upheld, then what.?]

    Leo, please, clarify for your readers that at the heart of both your case and Cort’s case – that is, the underlying cause of action – was not a request for the court to decide whether BO is a natural born citizen but rather, a request that the court order this determination be conducted by the Secretary of State, on the theory that this is a ministerial function of her job. That is, she is charged under state law with ensuring the candidates whose names are on the general election ballot in the state, are eligible for the office sought. Further, please, clarify that any denials of the relief you and Cort have requested thus far have been based on a finding, nothing in state law explicitly spells out, vetting a Presidential candidate submitted by the major political Party as to Constitutional eligibility is a legal requirement of the S of S’s job. Make sure they understand, no court of law has reached the substantive issue as to whether BO is a natural born citizen. Thank you.

  260. NJ Citizen Says:

    This is in response to Joe the Blogger who suggested:

    “Do the Electors of the Electoral College have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? If so, I’m sure there must be a significant number of them that are unsure, at the very least, as to the definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’. The ‘Electors’ would have standing to make an application to SCOTUS asking for clarification of the ‘NBC’ issue, as it relates to the candidates in this election.”

    Quick answer to the suggestion is that only “real cases” between adverse parties can go before SCOTUS. It most emphatically does not issue “advisory opinions” to guide people, even if they are electors. It issues rulings to settle actual disputes between parties. If Cort’s case doesn’t get a greenlight on Monday (and I’m not holding my breath on it getting one), then the kind of lawsuits which might force an adjudication of the NBC issue (for the sake of a ruling that guides future posterity and constrains the political parties from giving mere voters like all of us “faux candidates” and an illusion of choice) would need to get creative.

    Justin Riggs at yourfellowcitizen.com crosslinked to a site that has been compiling information and all of the Secretary of State offices which have responded to inquiries, thus far, make it very clear that they don’t regard themselves as having a duty to inquire / investigate / demand documentary proofs in support of eligiblity from candidates running at the Presidential/VP level. They’re able to get at all other levels of candidates (U.S. Senate and the like) because people running for those offices have some kind of local “hook” (residency, voter registration) which allows for localized verification. The results of what the SoS have provided are at


    Voters who never dreamed they had to take a CAVEAT EMPTOR attitude towards the real basic qualifying criteria like age and definitional NBC compliance — and could indulge in simply figuring out which candidate was the biggest “political liar” as far as campaign promises — are finding out what a laughingstock non-system of “vetting” exists for the highest office in the country. GOP and Dems are both culpable — McCain’s situation had mainstream media raising red flags with articles in the NYTimes, International Herald Tribune, ABC News’ Jake Tapper blog, all of which were followed up by that April 2008 non-binding S.511 being concocted to put the real “lipstick on a pig” of this election cycle.

    Save our Rights looks like it wants to pursue a Constitutional amendment to tighten up what candidates have to provide. That seems like overkill to me. Since a federal system like the U.S. leaves election matters to the individual states, my thought is that all it should take would be State Legislatures in a few states tightening up what they demand a candidate to present to their SoS offices — with a particular “push” for adoption of tightened standards reform measures made in those states which pride themselves for offering early primaries. NH. Iowa. States like those.

  261. …”if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    Beautiful semantics.

    Anyway, this is my interpretation. If you follow the logic, it is not hard to understand.
    “Natural Born Citizen” = Naturally Born as Citizen

    Sort of saying: By “nature” (blood), I am born as citizen.

    Simply ask yourself these questions:
    What does it mean to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America?
    1.A person born in the United States of America.
    2.A person born from parents who are citizens of the United States of America.

    What does it mean to be a native born citizen of the United States of America?
    •A person born in the United States of America.

    What does it mean to be a naturalized citizen of the United States of America?
    •A person granted citizenship after birth.

    What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States of America by statue?
    •A person granted citizenship at birth and not a native born citizen.

    1. All “natural born citizens” are by default native born citizens, but not all native born citizens are by default “natural born citizens”.

    2.A “citizen” is a person who is a natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen, or citizen by statue.

  262. Is my link to a thought provoking article being censored? If so, not sure why? It’s pretty level-headed. Thanks.


  263. Senator Herb Kohl (WI) keeps responding to my letters stating that because Obama was born in Hawaii he is a citizen and has shown his birth “certificate” as proof. So he maintains, Obama is eligible to be president. I pray for the patience of Leo!!

  264. […] a reporter or lawyer guilty of such, I would be compelled to hang my head in shame upon reading “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA: […]

  265. The following quote, the import which hopefully the Honorable Justices will keep in mind in Cort’s case, is very pertinent in this discussion I believe.

    “The Supreme Court’s very raison d’etre is the notion that it is engaged in a type of decision making different from, and in some sense superior to, that of the political branches of government. That is why we give the Court the authority to decide not just important legal issues, but, in the end, also many of the most divisive moral, social, and political issues of our time. Yet if the Court consistently abandons it proper modes of adjudication and role within our system of government, then it has betrayed its reason to be — and has not only broken its faith with the people it serves, but also surrendered its claim to legitimacy.”

    from: FindLaw, Dec. 12, 2000; Edward Lazarus, Gore v. Bush and the Meaning of Judicial Activism.

  266. According to what I recollect, after the Electoral College does its thing, any intervention from that point on is in the hands of Congress alone.

    There are then only two ways that I can think of for SCOTUS to get re-involved:

    1. (Highly unlikely) Justice Roberts refuses to swear Obama in at the Inauguration ceremony.

    2. After Obama assumes the presidency, a civil suit is brought before SCOTUS in connection with some new presidential order or other. The legal basis for the suit is that the order is not legally binding because the president is a usurper. That pushes the issue right back to SCOTUS. One can imagine thousands of such suits being brought after Obama has assumed office, if SCOTUS does not rule on the issue Monday. In fact, several organisations have pledged to do just that in the eventuality.

  267. […] “natural Born Citizen”: Defined by 14TH Amendment Framers and in Treatise Relied on by … [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false.  […] […]

  268. It funny that Obama helped with a Bill that would make John McCain a Natural Born Citizen. See article http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/obama_backs_law_to_ensure_mcca.html

  269. The above Bill is also mentioned on http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/peterodeh/gGgCTm
    which is a Barack Obama site.

  270. Mario from New Jersey Says:

    Correction Needed:

    In reading my latest post on 12-13-08, at 1:51 a.m, I noticed that in the beginning of my last paragraph I wrote “(soil and blood [paternal citizenship]) . . .” I meant to write “(soil and blood [parental citizenship]) . . .” Please note the correction. Thanks so much.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  271. Thalightguy Says:


    March 26, 1790

    And thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.


    January 29, 1795

    And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization;
    And the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

    When they say “and the children of citizens” are they talking about both Parents? Or do they mean citizens as in all citizens of the United States? Notice they do not say “a natural born citizen” they say “natural born citizens”.

    This proves McCain is not a natural born citizen (The framers realized what they had done and thus they changed it from natural born citizens to just citizens in the amendment of 1795) Does this prove Obama is not a natural born citizen? I do not know. It depends on how you interpret it.

    I started to post this as an example to show that both McCain an Obama were not natural born citizens until I noticed the citizens issue.

  272. stand up and fight Says:


    This link may be very interesting to you or your posters.


  273. [Ed. Madison has done so much good research on this issue.]

    Hey Leo,

    I know you’ve been to the Federalist Blog but wasn’t sure if you’ve seen these recent updates by Madison. I don’t recall seeing Savage v. Umphries mentioned here:


    Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

    When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

    Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:

    As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.

  274. People don’t lose hope even if Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is denied.The Berg Writ is still very much active still.I believe SCOTUS is sitting back,and poised might I add,to act.I believe they They are waiting to see if this error is corrected at the Electorial level,or at the Congressional level.If not, I believe they can then step in rightfully,because (Alan Keyes) they then have damages that can be shown.To step in prematurely could cause a great CIVIL WAR.I believe it is FAR from over!Bare in mind also what is happening in Illinois.Obama could be named next in their indictment also!!!!!

  275. I have been following your case and Wrotnowski with great interest and support since Nov 19. While looking for information on the SWP to use in a letter to NJ electors I came across this web page:
    http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5 and click on McCain wins ballot access issue. (I know you don’t agree with his decision on McCain, I am drawing your attention to the comments on how to proceed when challenging candidates’ eligibility.)
    Perhaps you don’t talk much about this approach to the problem since your case seeks to stop the election prior to the casting of electoral votes. However, the final paragraph indicates a dangerous precedent set by the California decision which the NBC cases could possible counteract.
    I know this is old information and you are probably already aware of it and I’m sorry to waste your time because I know you are very busy. I just wanted to bring it up because in all that I have studied on the issue this seems to be of little consequence. If nothing else, these comments give Americans the permission to continue challenging the election until the votes are counted in the Senate.

  276. Leo, Please let everyone know…
    I have a written a letter than can be printed, emailed, and otherwise distributed to everyone you know. It is very simple and encourages folks to investigate the meaning of NBC and then contact their elected officials if they are so inclined.

    The website is http://www.naturalborncitizen.org
    You can download the letter or print directly from the site. If you download, it will fit on one page. I have just printed 1000 copies, and I will spend the day delivering them all over my town. My printer, my car, my feet! There is no one else you guys…this is it. We are the people for the job.

  277. Texo’s post regarding a requirement to make President and VP nominees provide all relevant documentation as to their eligibility makes sense. With a corrupt media and a corrupt political system, we cannot expect these candidates to be vetted properly.

  278. I admit I was temporarily taken in by the group of Senators who came up with the purported ruling on McCain’s eligibility.

    It has since become clear that a bunch of Senators got together and rubber stamped a candidate, or to put it more bluntly, a bunch of Senators tried to be the law while rejecting the law.

    Most likely, they were simply trying to be efficient.

    New Senate Motto- “Never “assume” anything for you could make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.”

  279. Joe E. SHeldon Says:

    To Opey:

    Glad to see your 2nd newsvine link is working.

    Good article!

  280. SCOTUS may not want to cause havoc in the electoral procedure. If they stay the action of the Electoral College before it meets, no efficient alternative option may be obtainable. But if they let the Electoral College make Obama President-Elect, then the constitutional provision which makes the Vice-President Elect replace him should he fail to “qualify” takes effect — and a smooth transition to Biden as President-Elect takes place. Surely SCOTUS can act whenever it chooses, and perhaps this “smoother” scenario is viewed as safer for the Republic. This way the essential outcome of the election is preserved, with Democrats still in control, and no upheaval in an incoming Administration need take place.

  281. Leo, I have three questions that I hope you have time to answer for me. If you don’t I certainly understand. 🙂
    Do you think there is a posibility that the SC Justices did not issue a stay in the Electoral College vote because Obama is not President-elect until after the vote Monday and he needs to be before the Justices consider qualifications?

    Can a State Supreme Court Justice issue a stay for the Electoral College vote in his/her particular state?

    When the Electoral College meets in each state capital Monday, if one or more electors question qualifications, does that particular state EC have to resolve the issue before a vote is taken?

  282. I think Matt is right, SCOTUS cannot act right now for no crime has been committed yet. O won’t be President Elect ’til after the Electoral College votes are accounted for, that is, if they chose to vote for him.

    I’m still amazed at how people are so hoodwinked on this guy, these people are willing to change The Constitution just to keep this guy as their Commander-in-Chief. This is utterly appalling and quite unfair for many of us here. The MSM, our government, and some of our own family, friends and neighbors have completely sold America out to this puppet, and in exchange for what…SOCIALISM??

    Bush has become more likable now that he’s leaving office, I feel sorry for the man taking the blame for our economic crisis when it was the DEMOCRATS that started and ended it all, and with the help of MSM who did nothing but hide the truth from the American public when liberals were to blame, and whatever truths came out were imposed on the Repubs.

    Why worry about enemies like Iran, Russia and China when we’are about to have an enemy running our own country. America has never looked this bad folks…and this is only the beginning.

    Instead of sending petitions to members of the Electoral College, we should send them “cojones” and maybe then they’ll have to courage to stand of for what’s right and keep this O away from the Oval Office.

  283. Leo,
    I add my sincere thanks to you to those of the many other writers here. I really appreciate your patriotism and devotion to the Constitution, but also I appreciate that your approach is steady, credible, and temperate. Anyone who gives you a fair shake has to see that. God Bless!

  284. Are the actions of lawsuits in and working their way up to the supreme court having an effect on the electoral process?

    from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/ascertain.html

    Certificates of Ascertainment

    A Certificate of Ascertainment lists the:

    * names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received
    * names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received

    The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors as soon as possible after the November election.

    * Each Certificate must be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State.
    * One of the seven original Certificates of Ascertainment, along with two certified copies (or two additional originals) must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States.
    * Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Ascertainment.
    * The remaining Certificates are paired with the Certificates of Vote at the Meeting of Electors in December.

    2000 2004 2008
    ALABAMA NOV 22 NOV 29 –
    ALASKA DEC 5 DEC 7 –
    ARKANSAS NOV 30 NOV 23 –
    D.C. DEC 6 DEC 7 –
    FLORIDA NOV 26 NOV 18 NOV 24
    HAWAII NOV 27 NOV 22 –
    IDAHO NOV 22 NOV 17 NOV 19
    INDIANA DEC 5 NOV 23 –
    IOWA DEC 14 DEC 13 –
    KANSAS DEC 6 DEC 8 –
    MAINE NOV 27 NOV 23 NOV 25
    MARYLAND DEC 18 DEC 13 –
    MISSOURI DEC 11 DEC 13 –
    NEVADA DEC 4 DEC 7 –
    NEW YORK DEC 12 DEC 6 –
    OHIO DEC 11 DEC 6 –
    OREGON * * *
    TEXAS NOV 27 NOV 18 NOV 19
    UTAH DEC 1 DEC 9 NOV 24

    *Oregon certificate seems not to be dated.
    **There is no penalty for filing certificates late (after Dec. 13)

  285. Sorry about the format. It looked fine in the leave a reply box.

    Any way the dash “-” indicate certificate not as yet filed for 2008.

  286. stand up and fight Says:


    Your buddy Cort W. replied to this article his post is number #175


  287. Leo
    please address this possibility

    “Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”

    On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not “natural-born”. Judge Alsup said that McCain is “natural-born.” He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.
    Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.
    Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”
    The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn’t meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

    Thank you

  288. I submitted my previous post asking you to clarify for your readers the precise nature of the legal case you submitted to the courts because judging by their comments, they appear to mistakenly believe the court either rejected your analysis of eligibility under Article II or, refused even to consider that interpretation. Based on their wholehearted agreement with your legal arguments, they are understandably angry and frustrated. But this reminds me of the response of BO supporters to suggestions he is not a NBC. That is, having heard nothing in the MS about the deluge of state and federal court cases both directly and indirectly challenging his Constitutional eligibility and assuming, therefore, such concerns lack merit; these people ascribe sinister motives to any challenges, digging in their heels on their side of the line, still avoiding any analysis as to how they got there in the first place.

  289. One wonders if this event- a challenge to Obama’s presidency , is the ‘event which will test Obama’ that Biden was referring to? I think Biden said it would occur after he took office, not at the congressional confirmations (before), but still, it is worth considering.

  290. MS=MSM

  291. I hope that things go well on Monday. Thanks Leo for all your work.

    In the long run, if the courts won’t help then our last resort may be Congress. As I recall and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, It only takes one congressman and one representative to challenge the electoral vote in January. Surely with the arguments that have been laid out, we can find one of each to work together to make this challenge and finally ask for Proof that Obama’s eligible. Now I’m against form letters, 6000 copies of the same thing doesn’t have the same effect as 6000 original works, but if someone could just layout the key facts on a page that we could all use to write our own pleas to friendly congressmen, most likely Republicans, then maybe we can get the two or more we need?

    Just a thought.

    [Ed. form letters are a waste of time for sheeple who are to lazy to formulate their own words. They disgust me.]

  292. Heard Ed’s show on Friday. He predicts Cort’s case is going to be denied.

    [Ed. I won’t print anymore posts which don’t refer to Barack Obama by his name. I will not print posts which mention medical health issues. It’s not relevant and is disgusting to even think that these legal issues are being mixed up with tabloid trash. Anybody who wants to discuss such trash can do so, but not on my blog and I will never be on their shows.]

  293. Leonard D. Says:

    [Ed. That which is natural is self evident. If McCain needed a statute and a Senate resolution to attamept at clearing this us, that is oxymoronic in itself. He is a citizen by statute but not natural born. he was born off base in the City of Colon Panama in Colon Hospital. ]

    Why I think McCain is ‘natural born’ and the issue fully the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, not Congress.

    1) While Congress has full authority to legislate naturalization statute, SCOTUS is more qualified to analyze and interpret the law. I have written my congresswoman to block certification of the Electoral vote January 8th; but the more I read these posts, the more I realize SCOTUS is the proper venue.

    2) If one begins with Blackstone on Nationality, the distinctions between common law over subjects and our laws over citizens are subtle. Our statutes, and international law, provides exemptions and special rights for ambassadors and military. An ambassador, or active military, do not expose their newborn children to jus solis nationality, but retain full lineage by blood under the Crown; as, likewise, are current counterparts free from dual nationality. Therefore, naturalization at birth by statute is not applicable to such personnel involved in foreign service. They retain full protection and jurisdiction of their home country.

    3) A poster mentioned the term ‘inhabitant.’ That is the equivalent of ‘denizen’ in the Common Law. However, while an interesting distinction, there are only two classifications of U.S. citizen: Natural-Born, and Naturalized.

    4) McCain’s ‘natural-born’ status was not a congressional special dispensation, but a time-honored right of those active in foreign service to our government. Cf. the Kent State law review article cited several times in previous posts. The writer, a whining liberal, reasons that the natural-born status is discriminatory, denying naturalized citizens the same opportunity to be President, thus creating a ‘second class’ citizenship. What a shame, that in a naturalized citizen’s lifetime, he or she misses half a dozen opportunities to fill the Presidential slot. That calls to mind the joke, “I’ll sell you my chances to be President for a nickle.”

    5) I repeat, that under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama, Sr. had one year to register a Hawaiian-born baby Barack with the British secretary of state to preserve paternal British jurisdiction. Obama, Sr. was a bounder and a bigamist . . . and jurisdiction was lost . . . UNLESS, Obama was born in Kenya.

    Nevertheless, there is NO set of circumstances or interpretation of Law that makes Obama eligible under Art II. The argument that patriotism by ‘reason’ is superior to that of ‘nature’ is moot because, if true, the naturalized contender would exercise his or her patriotism through service (not rabble-rousing), sacrifice, and submission to the law . . . not Obama’s narcissistic and delusional quest for personal power. His sense of infallibilty, entitlement, and being above the law is dangerous. I can only conclude he is a psychopath and an idiot. His loyalties are not natural and not to the United States . . . only to himself and whom he adopts as brothers and sisters in Marxism and Race. It is a serious psychological compensation for an absentee father, and being spoiled by his white maternal guardians.

  294. Are the actions of lawsuits in and working their way up to the supreme court having an effect on the electoral process?

    from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/ascertain.html

    Certificates of Ascertainment
    A Certificate of Ascertainment lists the:
    * names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received
    * names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received
    The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors as soon as possible after the November election.
    * Each Certificate must be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State.
    * One of the seven original Certificates of Ascertainment, along with two certified copies (or two additional originals) must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States.
    * Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Ascertainment.
    * The remaining Certificates are paired with the Certificates of Vote at the Meeting of Electors in December.

    Certificates filed to date:
    (Assuming Oregon got theirs in prior to Nov. 30th)

    In 2000 19 (37.25%) by Nov. 30, 34 (66.67%) by Dec. 6, 46 (90.20%) by Dec. 12

    In 2004 16 (31.38%) by Nov. 30, 29 (56.86%) by Dec. 6, 38 (75.51%) by Dec. 12

    In 2008 11 (21.57%) by Nov. 30, 16 (31.37%) by Dec. 6, 16 (31.37%) by Dec. 12

  295. Leo, you probably have seen that very interesting video of Charlie Rose’s interview with Justice Scalia. It should be classic for law students.

    After viewing it I have come away with more hope that you and Cort have filed a case that Scalia has been waiting for all his legal life. i understand Scalia is an “originalist” who interprets the Constitution in what is actually written as opposed to Ginsberg/Breyer/Stevens who are “activists” interpret it as a “living” document that must be viewed as changing with the times. Scalia admitted that the Justices come to the SC with philosophical and political prejudice and interpret the Constitution accordingly. I am willing to make a fool of myself as a prophet, but I believe Scalia is taking Cort’s case and attempting to influence the justices to take it as well. If Chief Justice Roberts, who is “very persuasive” agrees with Scalia, then he will try to persuade the whole court to hear arguments. Monday morning will bring the good news with the SC taking the case. THIS is high stakes legal poker in that there are unknown consequences that can have an impact on the US and the world. As per Scalia, Justice Kennedy is a “consequentialist” and is influenced by what the consequences will be if a SCOTUS decision to nullify Obama’s eligibility for POTUS. The SCOTUS decision will be six against Obama, three for…and then civil chaos and the military intervention of martial law. O, by the way, the electors could vote, but the Vice President is President of the Senate and can stop the election by refusing to count the votes. SCOTUS can inform the House and Senate leaders not to accept the vote until a decision is made.

  296. Thank you so much for fighting this for us (the People). I’m so disgusted with how this whole situation’s been handled. But it gives me hope to have you and others who are willing to step away from the pack and stand up for what’s right.
    I have my fingers crossed that this Monday justice will prevail and your lawsuit will be taken seriously by SCOTUS.

  297. Just for fun: Google “Wrotnowski” on News. Sort by date.
    24 entries. 2 in the last 2 days.
    Anna Nicole’s casket driving through the city got non-stop live coverage.
    Our Free Press has lost it’s mind!
    Leo: who’s the most notable Press agency who’s contacted you?

  298. bob strauss Says:

    Is there any news pertaining to the issue with stay clerk at SCOTUS? Do you feel like they have been fair to you and this issue? Have they acted professionally or has it been a battle every inch of the way? It would be interesting to hear the full story of your experience. thank you.

  299. Keep up the great work, my fellow Americans. Sorry we had to take you away from the poker games. I would love to be on the professional poker circuit with you. Best of luck. Do you ever throw steal tipped darts? Shoot pool?

  300. sir, if i may ask a question to you, and perhaps to no other:

    “SCOTUS is the end of the line…”

    do you speak only as a lawyer (and an astute one at that – no flattery intended), or as a citizen as well?

    put the question another way, what exactly do people mean when they say we’re having ‘a constitutional crisis’?

    just what if SCOTUS does uphold a strict interpretation of the constitution,
    to grant a stay, or another appropriate action, in favor of this present issue before the court, and it is ignored?

    on first blush, that seems to me unthinkable and unbelievable – but it would not be unprecedented, because it has happened in the history of the United States of America… maybe more than once, no? a standing verdict by the SCOTUS, that was ignored by the people of the republic and their commander-in-chief – would that not be truly a constitutional crisis?

    every republic has it’s rubicon, don’t you think?

    could it be that we have crossed that river here in america a long time ago?

    i would be much obliged for your comment, clear and candid as i trust it will be.

  301. Joe E. Sheldon Says:

    I find it both ironic and of considerable interest that the “Obama isn’t eligible” issue has now made it to the tabloids appearing in supermarkets. One such periodical, The Globe, has a two page article along with various graphics of the “fake BC” and other items. Though concentrating of the BC issue it is truly remarkable how tabloids can pick up on the issue even before SCOTUS rules.

    And as for SCOTUS, remember that it was the stay that was denied so that, perhaps, the rest of the case is still active since there was no note of dismissal (but berhaps there needn’t be). At any rate, SCOTUS lately has been granting certs on their Friday “Miscellaneopu Orders” list and other rulings on the Monday “Order List” which are typically denied certs.

    Looking at that, could that be a bad sign??? Could be. Could also be (since this is anything but a normal case) that they intend to join the two cases and grant cert to the combination. Perhaps they’d even issue a ruling on one or both cases as one of the Orders – who knows??? Certainly no one outside of the justices have any notion at this point so we’ll have to prayerfully wait and see.

    IAE, kudos to the REAL “pair to draw to” … Cort and Leo!!

  302. paulsidcup Says:

    Mr. Donofrio is correct about the influence of Emerich de Vattel’s book “The Law of Nations” (1758) on the Founding Fathers’ thinking and writing. I cannot agree with the comment, “The Supreme Court does not even follow the U.S. Constitution, much less a book written by a Frenchman in 1758.”

    (1) Vattel was born in Switzerland, was a counselor (ambassador) for the Kingdom of Saxony, and wrote “Le Droit des Gens” (The Law of Nations) in the French language.

    (2) The work was translated into English, published in London in 1759 and went through numerous editions, including American editions of 1796, 1833 and 1852, the 1883 reprint of the 1852 edition being available on the internet. Vattel’s book was the most influential work on international and constitutional law in the period 1758-1900.

    (3) Ben Franklin wrote to Dutch diplomat Charles Dumas in 1775, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

    (4) John Adams thought so highly of Vattel that he considered him a father-figure, writing in his diary for February 1, 1763 after wasting his time, “I employed however, too little of my Time in Reading and in Thinking. I might have spent much more. The Idea of M. de Vattell indeed, [illegible] scowling and frowning, haunted me.”

    (5) James Madison, in his instructions to John Jay in Madrid on October 17, 1780, quoted Vattel concerning American rights to sail on the Mississippi, “An innocent passage (says Vattel) is due to all nations with whom a State is at peace.”

    (6) The Founding Fathers were so familiar with the works of Vattel that nobody felt the need to define natural-born citizen, since Vattel had already done so.

    (7) The phrase “the law of nations” appears in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”

  303. The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from “law” to “political and Congressional”, leading to the ‘inauguration’ of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his ‘commander in chief’ status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the “usurper” may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no “tin foil hat” joke.

  304. So, in January President Obama will take the oath to uphold the constitution that he is subverting?

  305. Do delete my previous post, as the quote is taken completely out of context. I felt it worked both ways on first reading. I still do, but most readers probably would not see it that way. Thanks.

  306. By any peaceful means neccessary, hunger strike?

  307. Time for a laugh:

    IMPD officer in trouble over ‘impeach Obama’ sticker


    Indianapolis – Sticker shock lands an Indianapolis police officer in trouble. The officer had an “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker on his laptop inside his police car.

    Through the glare of the window shield, it’s not that hard to see the political message in black letters on a yellow background. It’s supposed to attract attention, and it did.

    In the front seat of all Indianapolis Metro Police cars are laptops, owned by the city and operated by the city and designed for police business. As a general rule the laptops are not supposed to be used for any other reason.

    “My first impression was it represented the entire department,” said Sarah Harrison, Indianapolis.

    “You can’t have something like that. Even though he has first amendment rights, it is a city owned vehicle and it is not going to be tolerated by the chief, by the major and he will face some disciplinary action,” said Lt. Jeff Duhamell.

    “That’s why I took the pictures because I wanted to have proof and get it out there and see what we could do to get it changed,” said Harrison.

    Change is coming. The officer, identified as Patrolman James Quyle, has been ordered to remove the sticker from his laptop and he will, according to the department, be disciplined.

    Indianapolis police as well as other city employees are told not to get involved in politics while representing the city. The first amendment has its place, but not while on the city clock.

  308. A short list of “Naturalized US Citizens” – NOT “Natural Born Citizens”


    Even Rezko made this Esteemed List

  309. It has been suggested that those of u;s who are interested align with the Hillary suporters to promote with he electorats to vote for Hillary. By combining the supporters of Obama who are disgusted with thim with the Hillary folks we could get her in as potus. The idea of cooperation has merit but getting Hillary as potus is far from ideal. If we selecta a candidate who will give a semlpblance of check and balance ,not another democrat, in the legislators, we would do a greater benefit to the country. While we are at it we could select a candidate who is most capable with economical problems to lead us through the depression that we face. The most ideal candidate who comes to mind who has much to offer at this point in history is Dr. Ron Paul. Time is short but much could be accomplished with email. Readers: think about it and perhaps we can each make a contrbution by our contacting electorats. Ron Paul is knowledgable and a strong supporter of the constitution plus the technical knowledge of finance and economics.

  310. Patriot X Says:

    December 13, 2008 at 3:34 pm
    By any peaceful means neccessary, hunger strike?

    Fantastic idea!

  311. Dual citizenship dicussed by our lawmakers in the year 2005


  312. Fernley Girl Says:

    I just finished reading Edwin Vieira’s article, “In the Shadow of Nemisis” via a previous comment on this site. I’ll admit I struggle with “legalese”, but it seems Vieira has laid out the next step to resolve the eligibility issue, after the Electoral College has carried out its duties. If I am correct, I wouldn’t know where or how to start. Any guidance (book, website, etc.) would be appreciated. Or, maybe there’s another lawyer reading my post that can answer my question…?
    BTW, your book should include a bonus music DVD!!!

  313. Who will give liberty or give me death, hunger strike for AMERICA!

  314. Leo,

    You just hit the proverbial nail on the head:

    [Ed. That which is natural is self evident.]

    These 7 words sums up the Natural Born Citizenship argument.

    If you have to ask a presidential candidate if he’s qualified, he’s NOT!

  315. This Quote by SCJ Scalia say’s it ALL in a Nutshell

    Though he sometimes sounds like a champion of the status quo, with all its inequities, Scalia points out that it is not the court’s job to decide what is right, only what is constitutional. When his fellow Justices cast themselves as moral arbiters, as he insisted they did in the V.M.I. case, their enterprise, he wrote, “is not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one.” The one we have suits Scalia just fine.


  316. Thalightguy Says:

    Leo, You probably already have this, if not, here it is.


    A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
    The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, Volume 2

    December 19, 1775
    Ben Franklin to Dumas

    I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel

    Read page 63
    Ben Fraklin, John Dickinson and John Jay send away for Vattels Law of Nations.

  317. [Ed. they can take the thoughts and put it in their own handwriting then…form letters suck]

    I understand how you feel about form letters. This letter, however, is not for people to send as their own thoughts. It’s about sending a clear, concise message that can be understood by friends and family who don’t have the benefit of hearing you explain it so gracefully. I have followed your blog sites and radio appearances since DAY 1 of you going public, so I know how you feel about this issue.

    I am encouraging folks to send this letter to everyone they know as a source of information. The letter encourages people to research the issue themselves and take action if they’re so inclined. There are no links in the letter as I want it to remain neutral. It provides a few starting points to jump into the research.


  318. Fernley Girl Says:

    Wandering around the web I found this site:
    Scroll down the page, on the left side click on “About the Author”
    The author, Ted Hilton, has been involved in 14th Amendment issues for years.

  319. [Ed. Cort is not an attorney. If the case is accepted for oral argument, Cort will make a motion for me to argue the case.]

    I was just reading the rules for attorneys presenting oral arguments before SCOTUS. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/guideforcounsel.pdf

    Should the case make it to arguments phase I wondered who would present these as the petitioner, and if you and Cort would be co-counsels.

    I seem to remember some attorneys have to have credentials to argue, but I do not know if true.

    You may not want to share this prematurely but if you can share anything it would be great!

  320. Along with my previous post I was wondering about the opposing counsels.
    It seems like the SOS in order to maintain impartiality could not team with Mr. Obamas lawyers in opposing this suit at this stage. I can see that they may both argue the same points of law however.

    Please explain why if I am wrong to think this?

    Again I realize this is premature and perhaps will wait until we cross that bridge.

  321. Leo,

    I was just wondering…

    Is American Citizen and United States Citizen two different things?

    They must be..right?

  322. Election Observation : If McCain and Obama are both disqualified, logic would dictate that the third place winner should take the election. Can anyone say President Nader without laughing, crying or pulling ones hair out though?

    Oh! sorry about you having to edit / delete my posts earlier Leo. I just get upset at the folks that post here that try to get you to just except this flawed election and move on without questioning this NBC issue.

    I’ll try not to get to upset in the furture….

    Thanks for following through on this issue again friend…..

  323. Joss Brown Says:


    I disagree. There is never anything “self-evident” in sciences, history and law, even if it’s a “natural matter”. There isn’t even anything “evident” before it’s investigated and explained. One always needs observation, theory, investigation, proof or falsification, and argument. That’s why Mr. Donofrio didn’t leave it at the caption in Cort’s brief, but has—along with his prior observations, his theory and investigation, also added a logical argument, namely that a “natural born citizen” cannot be someone who receives citizenship through some act of law or statute (as in McCain’s case), or put differently: that the status of a “natural born citizen” at birth cannot be governed by citizenship clauses, let alone those of a foreign country (as in Obama’s case). I completely agree, and I think this is a very good conclusion, which derives from factual observations and substantive investigation, but can also be supported by many other sources and expert opinions. But it’s not self-evident. In the brief it reads:

    “Thus the very requirement in the minds of some that the phrase be previously defined in law for it to have a clear meaning is itself a testimony to their misunderstanding of its authentic meaning.”

    It needn’t be defined in law, that’s right. (Although a Constitutional definition could be a possibility, in my opinion.) But to my mind this has nothing to do with real epistemological (self-)evidence, because even in this case—as was done in Cort’s brief and other essays—the natural born citizen status has to be explained and corroborated, has to be put in context, in historical perspective, specifically with regard to McCain and Obama.

    So maybe it’s more like a “declared self-evidence”, as e.g. in the Declaration of Independence, where it says: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident”. The fact that something is “held” to be self-evident, actually shows that it’s not self-evident at all.

  324. Ted: question directed to you if you read this. Think I may know you. Are you from MI & do you know Rick L. & Mike F. in Denver? Yes & no answers are sufficient, after all we’re all just good American citizens out here.

  325. Leo & Cort….the two of you are true Patriots. I hope SCOTUS is going to “Do the Right Thing”. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Henry, & thousands upon thousands of others whose names we never knew & will never know are looking down upon you in hope that your efforts will succeed. I hope you will succeed.


    [Ed. Ron Paul will never be President. He totally let me down.]

    “The most ideal candidate who comes to mind who has much to offer at this point in history is Dr. Ron Paul.”

    You need to do some arithmetic here. Ron Paul won ZERO electors, and there is ZERO chance that any Democratic electors will vote for him, meaning that he has ZERO chance of becoming president. OTOH, Hillary does have a chance (albeit, remote) of winning the electoral college.

  327. Leo:
    What happened?

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

    Your are an honorable Patriot and have looked forward to hearing you on the radio?

    Can you please explain what happened?
    You can e-mail me directly if you don’t want to post.

    Take care.

  328. Patriot X: a hunger strike “may” not be a good idea at this point in time. We will need our strength to fight on if SCOTUS doesn’t “Do the Right Thing” on 12/15/08. Expect the worst & pray for the best.

  329. [Ed. I agree, but snarky cute arrigant asides don’t help, they just distract. Sarcasm is the virtue of phonies.]

    I respect you for that position. But, I have a question for you Leo. If a person has different names and they are all recorded on documents, why can’t we discuss them? They are called aliases.

    I understand your argument, but under our first amendment (free speech), we are entitled to talk about the facts. It is a fact that Barack H. Obama II has many aliases.

    I hope your case goes through. But, this coup de’tat that is occurring in all levels of our government from Danny Bickell’s sabotage to everything is worse than JFK’s assassination and even Nixon’s watergate.

    This is scary. This is not just a legal argument, but this is scary what is occurring in our country in all forms of government and how people are ill informed.

  330. [Ed. It’s not that I disagree, it’s that I vehemently disagree. By igniting ugly fires and promoting inflammatory imagery, they are simply preashing to the choir. If you want to eduacte people on the other side of your issue, you do that with firm but respectful arguments. Hate don’t equate.]


    While I support your legal argument, although not an attorney, and hope that your case or Cort’s case succeeds purely on the Constitutional issues you are arguing, I have to take exception to your hard-nosed attitude towards Ed Hale and Lan Lamphere.

    These guys had shows, and fan support, prior to your case. These two individuals agreed to give you air time to support your position and allow you to inform their audiences on the progress of your case(s).

    Just because you may disagree with a picture of Obama compared to Hitler or because someone reports on something that they were told about the president-elect’s health, doesn’t give you the right to “take your ball and go home.”

    Just becasue you buy coffee at Starbucks doesn’t necessarily mean you support their decision to donate money to Planned Parenthood. See what I mean?

  331. I have taken an hour of my time to view the video entitled “Charlie Rose: An Hour with Justice Antonin Scalia” that was taped on June 23, 2008, and which can be accessed by going to the earlier post on this site from ‘Joseph,’ dated today, 12/13/2008, and timed at 1:13 PM.

    It is a marvelously insightful interview with a brilliant Associate Justice who is a true ‘Originalist’ in his thinking about the meaning of our Constitution which he refers to as a ‘Fantastic Document” because it set up our government “Structure.”

    I deeply believe that ‘IF’ he considers Obama to be ineligible to hold the office of the President because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ — as understood by the Framers of our Constitution — he has spent this last week and perhaps this current weekend attempting to persuade his colleagues that he is ‘right.’

    His comments about Bush v. Gore were interesting to me because his attitude about that case was that, because the Florida recount was un-Constitutional, it had to be stopped ‘quickly.’ It was easy for me to extrapolate that to Obama’s ineligibility.

    I am so much more hopeful now, than before I listened to Justice Scalia in his own words, that Cort’s case can receive a favorable ruling/decision this coming Monday.

    Please take your time to view this video. You won’t be sorry!i

  332. [Ed. Don’t hate, educate.]

    Told ya, Leo. Most all of these people lining up to support you and your case aren’t doing it because they are concerned with the Constitutional issues.. They simply hate Obama, for whatever reasons.

    We’ve hours and hours of Ed recorded railing against Obama and his wife, Michelle (who Ed calls “The Gorilla”). He’s said on his show that he’d like to “slap him on the back with a 6-inch butcher knife”. And he’s ranted for almost 30 minutes once calling him a “nigger”. That was in August and he stopped using the N word after that, as he lost a lot of listeners.

    Don’t publish this as it serves no purpose for your case.

  333. Reflex,

    If nobody gets fifty percent of the Elector’s votes, the top three are voted on by the House of Representatives (one vote per state).


  334. Per:

    Thank you, Leo,

    [Ed. Good points above. But please do not use bold face – i must reserve that for my replies. I had to snip the last part. I want to stay on point as to nbc.]

    I didn’t mind when I thought you snipped the entire thing. ;-` Just wanted to make that point which “if I were making oral arguments,” might be the point to which I would begin, end, and tie the entire case. (But then again, they do an inhumane amount of of interrupting.)

    From how you have spoken and written about it, I find you essentially doing just that, even though I hadn’t caught you mentioning the Jay letter.

    ***And please go ahead and delete this whole message.***

    Let me know if you ever do a festival or something in Wisconsin or N. Illinois. ;-`


  335. Leo,

    I am so sorry to hear that you will not be back on Plains and I totally stand by you in your opinion and after it was announced, it ran ramped thru the chatroom, I stood up and refuted the derogitory comments. I sure hope we have more chances to hear from you even if only thru your this website, as muddling thru all this legal mumbo jumbo has been quite a challenge, but your direction has been invaluable to us lay people. I hope that you will continue to post media outlets where we may be able to follow you & Cort in your quest in standing up for our Constitution and helping us to understand this great document in our continued efforts to teach others and advocate for our Constitution in our small communities all over this country.

    I know you probably are anxious to get back to the behind the scenes life you came to enjoy, but you have a talent & extreme knowledge and a gift for teaching, not to mention a great radio voice. Thank You so much for lighting the fire in me. May it never cease to glow.

  336. Leo,

    I applaud your decision to distance yourself from Plains Radio Network. I have enjoyed listening to your many comments and hope that you find another venue where we can continue to listen and respond to you live in person. Thank you for all you have done.

    Bob in TN

  337. Leo, please make amends with Ed Hale of Plains Radio. I ask(ed) Ed to do the same. Don’t let the adversaries drive a wedge and win by advantage.

  338. NJ Citizen Says:

    I don’t know what this was about ….

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

    …. and I don’t need to. Just glad to see you’re keeping it CLASSY, Leo. So much of talk radio can go over the line, it’s hard to figure out how to get the “message out” (using radio or TV for that matter) without getting a straightforward message mixed up with an objectionable larger context, outside one’s control. Just another NJ person keeping you in thoughts.

  339. NJ Citizen Says:

    RE the above post in which: Anna Says: December 13, 2008 at 11:11 am I admit I was temporarily taken in by the group of Senators who came up with the purported ruling on McCain’s eligibility. It has since become clear that a bunch of Senators got together and rubber stamped a candidate, or to put it more bluntly, a bunch of Senators tried to be the law while rejecting the law. Most likely, they were simply trying to be efficient. New Senate Motto- “Never “assume” anything for you could make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.”
    I think it was an even exchange. McCain had something that looked legalistic and let him proceed despite the publicized questioning of his NBC eligibility. Obama’s situation of being NBC ineligible wasn’t really known very well outside the circles of the more attuned in D.C / Capitol Hill. He’s been the largely unknown “fresh face” and in return for his co-sponsorship of S.511, McCain probably agreed not to bring up the NBC problem that Obama himself had as they were trading campaign charges against each other. It doesn’t even need to have been an explicit “agreement” — just something that was tacit. If McCain or Palin had raised the legitimate claim of Obama having an NBC impediment, the mainstream media would have been forced to somehow deal with the issue and carry it as part of the election news. But if McCain used it to challenge Obama, he’d have seen Obama turn around and challenge him. Unspoken deal between them. Silent media. Americans were left in darkness and needed to use Internet to wake each other up and begin the fresh round of “education” about what the Constitution’s three words really mean. 2012 will not find people so unprepared.

  340. NJ Citizen Says:

    Proof that McCain knew he had a problem as far as NBC eligibility: Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced the last known resolution attempting to amend the Constitution’s natural born clause. That was in 2003. Like the prior ones before it, it never went very far. Congress never cleared it to get it out to the states for ratification. If it had been successful, the date of the introduction would have clearly paved the way for a run in 2008 (five years later). Amending “natural born” has been attempted over 20 times, according to one of the internet articles on the topic.

  341. Mr. Donofrio,
    Please forgive me for playing poor student,
    I, like others here, am just trying to understand this by looking at different angles to the question.
    Since Mr. Obama admits his British jurisdiction inherited through his father it occurs to one, that he must rely on some dual citizenship provision in an attempt to maintain a “natural born citizen” status. He must be claiming he cannot be stripped of that status.

    Reading through the articles below, it is unclear to me what the laws might have been in regards to dual citizenship. The the Supreme Court did rule that the Constitution could not be subverted either by an act of Congress,Treaty nor Executive agreement.


    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, “this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

    But reading through David A. Martin
    Warner-Booker Distinguished Professor of International Law and Class of 1963 Research Professor
    University of Virginia School of Law
    Dual Nationality: TR’s “Self-Evident Absurdity”
    left me wondering about all of Mr. Obama’s alleged participation in Mr. Odingas election efforts in Kenya.
    This goes directly to an allegiance issue, and though I know you will not likely raise this in your case, it actually lends weight to the original thinking the framers posed in adopting the “natural born citizen” requirement.

  342. Thalightguy Says:

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

    Leo, I agree with you 100% on this. We are serious people and we do not have room for this kind of Tabloid Reporting.

    I do not believe Joe Thunder made these remarks. I have emailed FreedomMarch asking them to let me know where they stand on this issue so I can make up my mind on whether or not I will continue to be a member or not.

  343. BerlinBerlin Says:

    Hi Leo,
    the update in blue…
    What did Plains Radio say about Obamas health?
    Of course, if You don’t want to write it down, I understand.
    I just could not find that on the web.

  344. What did Plains Radio say about his health?

  345. I didn’t hear at Plains, but I haven’t been on in a couple of nights. However, if it’s what I think it was, which it may be, I saw it first on that stupid API that someone posted. After that, I also saw it posted at TexasDarlin. Then it was listed at a specific site where many names are listed and was there for a couple of weeks, then it was removed completely. My guess is that someone planted it. I think that I know what it is, but I won’t say.

  346. MashieNiblick Says:

    I’ve enjoyed listening to your conversations on Plains Radio, and I have to agree with you if they said anything related to his health. I’ll have to reconsider being associated with their site if that type of information is what they are promoting. I have no problem telling people I do not want Obama as President (or McCain), but I want him not to be President for valid reasons, not because of rumors. Thanks for your efforts and please keep us updated on media outlets where we can hear where your efforts are headed.

  347. southerncross Says:

    I believe the comments were presented by presenter Ed Hale in reference to an email he had recieved. I don’t think Ed Hale meant any ill by his comments, and commented only out of frustration and excitement combined. Emotion is very hugh regarding this case, and others like it.

    I have come to comment on something totally unrelated however, which is this Blagojovich scandal, and the fact that Nancy Pelosi seems to have done all the vetting of Obama and comanded each state govenor to allow his entry on the ballot due to her own qualification pf Obama. Could there be a gross misconduct of government function involved in Obama being placed on the ballot due to the fact that only Nancy Pelosi determined that Obama was elligable as a natural born citizen?

    I also wanted to add this about my opening comment. America is in real need right now, Leo, of hearing your voice. You can not expect to change everyones opinion at the same time or even have them think the same way at the same time. Ed Hale is just a man who is looking for answers and has one of the biggest job’s in the world thrust into his lap because FOX and CNN etc won’t touch the story unless its showing it failing!

    Ed Hale sounds like an older styled gentleman who grew up knowing what it was like to work hard in a family business. He is a real American. Condemn Obama for making Ed’s head spin with this controversy, not Ed or PlainsRadio………….I’m just an Australian guy looking from the outside on mate, so take it all with a grain of salt if you must, but I’ve been out there myself trying to get people to tune in and only listen to the facts as presented by your own words, including answering concerned callers questions.

    It’s for this reason, I suggest you go on radio and set Ed Hale straigh on a few things, especially the disclisure of hearsay evidence, and keep the core facts of your case as the main focus of everyone’s attention.

    I hope you will forgive Ed Hale’s moment of clouded judgement, and rethink your involvement with the people at plainsradio. It’s the people who need you Leo……….they need your voice to stay on task. I know you have your priciples, but please, keep talking to them!


  348. southerncross Says:

    I know I made some spelling errors in my previous post. But I have to ask you to please consider (if you can understand what I said) to continue to try and bring people together on the issue with your voice. They NEED you Leo. Without hearing you, I wouldn’t have known how to talk to them about it either!

  349. Leo~

    I was listening to PlainsRadio the other night when Ed said what he did about Barack Obama’s health — then, posted the link. When I saw the website that he had posted I was shocked! Anyone can post anything about another on that website. I thought about what you were going to say about this — and your association with them. I do not blame you at all for your decision. You are fighting for the truth — and Ed, it appears wants to be a celebrity — via shock & awe.

    Also, in regards to the Dr. Edwin Vieira articles – as mentioned above — he is amazing. If you (or others) are unaware of him — here are several good, long, indepth judicial analysis:

    In “The Shadow of Nemesis” – he discusses NBC, Elector votes & Congresses roll in counting those votes, & the Barack Obama usurper issue: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm .

    Another great article “OBAMA MUST STEP UP OR STEP DOWN” http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm . He discusses the effect of a usurper in office.

    Here’s an interview with Dr. Vieira: http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/01/archive/20210273.txt

    I hope for a brighter Monday at SCOTUS!

    Thank you, Leo, for ALL your hard work. You are a national hero!

  350. linecreek305 Says:

    southerncross Says: some good stuff Leo.

    Those down under boys are good mates to have on board.

    Still you do what is in your heart to do. What ever gives you pleasure but hurts no other is ok by me. Your life mate you make your own mistakes and you can learn from them.


  351. “It’s about who comes next,” as you said, Leo. It describes several posts I have made online to illustrate this issue. Should someone with Obama’s factual heritage be sworn in as POTUS, imagine this as a possibility:

    An American woman of two citizen parents gives birth to a son in New York City. The father is a foreign terrorist, let’s say it’s Osama bin Laden. (Unlikely but this is an extreme hypothetical.) If anyone considers Obama natural born than they would also have to consider little Osama bin Laden, jr. as natural born. Scary? It should be.

    I believe the founding fathers created the qualifications of the POTUS to prevent this from happening. Yes, it will be ultimately unfair to many qualified people – perhaps Obama amongst them – but it protects us all from my scenario.

    I cannot imagine the the Supreme Court will not see it that way.

    [Ed. Come Monday, there is no Constitution. There is no “Supreme” Court, just a court. And it doesn’t appeare honorable to me anymore. And it never will be as long as that clerk has a job.]

  352. I did hear what Ed Hale said on Plains Radio. It is does not relate to any President’s eligibility per se, but it would most possibly affect Presidential performance. It’s rather gross mis-speak, and it is outside the scope of our main disagreement with Obama since it concerns his health. But then, if true, it points to Obama’s lifestyle and character. But I am already convinced that Obama’s life is a sad way to live a life.

    If you are going to cut ties with Plains Radio, then you need to speak or write to the directly and state you case. They will respect you all the more. I don’t agree with everyone all the time. But that does not mean I need to withdrawal from them. Or is it only you that has never put his foot in his mouth?

    [ed. I spoke with Ed about it. I didn’t like his answer or his attitude.]

  353. Leo, I am confused about your latest blog. We, the people, respect you. Democracy can be confusing and noisy. Stay strong.

  354. You said: Just became aware of Plains Radio’s gross statements regarding Barack Obama’s health. Leo Donofrio will not be on Plains Radio again.

    I hate to hear that, I enjoyed hearing you discuss the case on Plains Radio, it was so informative. There are several host on there. What did the person say and who said it?

  355. Phil Berg filed another application for stay to Justice Kennedy on Friday and it seems pretty good to this non-legal guy. The interesting point in the application was the use of Cort’s case as support for the motion.

    Does this now link them to the hip for the duration Leo?

    [Ed The cases are not linked and I haven’t read Berg’s motion. I have no idea what will happen. Both Cort and I made the nbc issue number 1, but both of us plead in the alternative as well as to the SOS checking BC etc. I had to plead that point to cover all bases, but I don’t believe it will lead to anything but a a solid BC for Obama. Berg and others like in the Keys case only plead as to the BC issue. I’m happy that Cort’s case and my case took a broader approach, but I don’t think any of these cases are going anywhere.]

    Leo, be strong young man, you have created a shit storm and you need to ride it out. Stick to your faith in yourself and God to see you through the challenges that lie before you.

    God Bless you Minuteman.

  356. My link to Patriot Brigade radio was zapped after I saw the image of Obama as Hitler. Found out later Leo, you had walked away from them, spot on Brother.

    The behavior of some diminish what you are trying to achieve Leo, protect our way of life through the rule of law. Thanks for taking the high road.

    After Monday I predict your name and Cort’s will be known by everyone, although they will still mispronounce your last names. MSNBC will shut down for a week of mourning and the rest of the Nation will finally wake up and discover how close we were to a Constitutional Disaster.

    [Ed. The case will be denied. I don’t think they ever wanted anything to do with it. Look what they allowed the clerk’s office to do to my case and Cort’s, flagging Cort’s for anthrax and everything else they did to stop it from reaching the justices. Bickell must have been operating under orders from higher up the food chain. The fact that he still has a job there is frightening.

    Bickell has protection but the Constitution does not.

    On Monday, the United States will wake up with no Constitution. It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. It’s done as done can be. My case was strong, and Cort’s case was virtually air tight. But factions of the Court didn’t want these cases before them because now they didn’t want the burden of history on them. Now they have no excuse. The natural born citizen issue was squarely before them. All of the resulting damage and the blood of the Constitution is on their hands forever.

    Cort’s case will be denied on Monday. And that will signal the very end of the nation’s unique Document.]

    BTW most National Guard units have their Unit Training Assemblies scheduled for this weekend because of the holidays. I’m curious if they will be drawing gear and supplies today?

    It is strange how different events seem to come together for a reason.

  357. prosepetrose Says:

    Is it possible none were aware of that? If you are right, what could happen then???? That’s a really bad trouble!

  358. Leonard D. Says:

    [Ed. That which is natural is self evident. If McCain needed a statute and a Senate resolution to attamept at clearing this us, that is oxymoronic in itself. He is a citizen by statute but not natural born. he was born off base in the City of Colon Panama in Colon Hospital. ]

    Colón, Panama. «koh LOHN» (2000 pop. 204,208), is the second largest city in Panama, at the Caribbean end of the Panama Canal. Colón was surrounded by, but not part of, the former Panama Canal Zone. Colón is an important port, commercial center, and tourist destination. It was made a free trade zone in 1953 and is the world’s second largest duty-free port.

    I understand the role of statute in determining ‘naturalization’ versus ‘naturl born.’

    However, applying Common Law as etiology, and the militiary/ambassador exemption as a lack of dual nationality, the acquiring by McCain of ‘natural born’ status was out of respect for foreign service to a nation, and the lack of dual nationality.

    With no dual nationality, statute was not required to remove alienage. McCain’s ‘natural born’ status was not self-evident, but a sound and logical necessity based on history, law, and tradition.

    I understand your position, but I am trying to make a distinction.

  359. Liberal Originalist Says:

    I absolutely agree with your interpretation of “natural born citizen”, Leo. I was thinking about the implications of interpreting it merely as someone born in the U.S., and I can’t imagine that was what the framers intended. If all that is needed for one to become president is to be born in the U.S., live here for 14 years, and be 35 years old, theoretically it would have been possible for the King of England to have a child in the U.S., take the child back to and raise him in England, have the child ascend to the throne, move back to the U.S. for 14 years, promise the electors some grand reward (e.g. some part of the Empire), be elected to power, and disband the U.S. army, allowing England to regain control over the U.S. I can’t imagine the framers wouldn’t have thought of this type of scenario, and I agree that’s exactly why they stipulated in language that was clear at the time that the POTUS had to be born of two citizens in the U.S.

  360. Hi Leo,
    I didn’t hear the remarks made on Plains Radio so I can’t comment on what he said, although I commend you for staying above the fray of comments that are made by people that have given you air time on your cases. It isn’t any different than Chris Mathews saying, “He gives me a tingle up my leg”. I always have looked at the media the last few years, not reporting actual truth, but making what should be news into a dog and pony show.

    I can also see that if Cort’s case is taken for argument tomorrow, you want to keep the truth, the truth and nothing but the truth. If it is denied tomorrow, you still want to keep the truth and nothing but the truth because anything less is only a distraction and gross circus show around the real issues at hand. Ed may think it makes for good radio but we Americans are looking for the truth not the same old as we can get from any of the other MSM.

    It would have been nice though to have an outlet to talk about your case if taken or if denied, for you to give answers to questions or to give closure to your endearing work to expect our Constitution to be upheld, but upheld with dignity. Maybe somewhere out there, is that place. Have you ever thought about Mike Rosen out of Denver. I have never known any other radio host that stays with the facts as Mike Rosen does. He is a fact base kind of guy and is very intelligent, gives very intelligent discussions. Just a thought. He also has had a couple shows talking about Obama and his eligibility. I would love to hear the two of you talking about this issue. His show on 10-28-08 you can listen to on his site and see what you think. Of course this was before your case that brought to light that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. Here is the web address for you to listen. http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=shows_rosen.xml

  361. Dwight Meeks Says:

    This from the Supreme Court Blog:


    On Monday, the Court may issue one or more opinions in pending cases, as well as release the remaining orders from the Justices private conference last Friday. Following Monday, no oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued until at least January 9.

  362. Leo I applaud you in taking the high road with both Lan on the picture he posted and with Ed posting the medical record info (tho I didn’t see either myself) You are a very respected man and I am both impressed and intrigued with your knowledge of the NBC issue. You have tought so many of us so much about the Constition in recent weeks. You have labored unceasingly over both cases and for that you have mine and many others deep appreciation and respect.

    But I must tell you that although you have taken the High Road concerning some sketchy issues, it also seems you have all but given up….
    For me this is very disappointing. Just like with Ron Paul.. He gave up too…

    Leo, you have so much knowledge and expertise that we still need you so desperately… Meaning We The People…Please reconsider throwing in the towel completely and consider standing with Steve in his case. You all were rocking the other night.

    Is there any chance that you might still be on Joe Thunder’s show? Or would the fact that Joe bought Patriot Brigade cause you to not want to be on the show? We want to hear from you Leo…We need to hear from you. We need your guidence and encouragement on this issue.

    I respect whatever you decision you make, but you will be gravely missed by many if you chose to cut all ties… You Sir, are a True Hero and Patriot and for that you have my complete and utmost respect. Thank you for all you have done to Save Our Country…

    God Bless you my friend….

    [Ed. And you my friend. There’s no way to fight them. I took it to them. they didn’t want it. They put Bickell there to stop the case. he’s still there. he mocked my case and Cort’s case. They issued an anthrax alert on Cort’s letters. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start locking dissenters up soon as the internet will be held not to be a “free speach zone”…. Bye Bye USA. Correct me if Im wrong, but Obama said the Constitution is a flawed document and Bush said it was just a piece of paper. SCOTUS had the case on legal grounds…TWICE. What they pulled last week, distributing Cort’s case as mine was denied… that feels like it was a tease, just power messing with people’s minds.]

  363. As per your comment to Rob S.;
    On Monday, the United States will wake up with no Constitution. It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. It’s done as done can be. My case was strong, and Cort’s case was virtually air tight. But factions of the Court didn’t want these cases before them because now they didn’t want the burden of history on them. Now they have no excuse. The natural born citizen issue was squarely before them. All of the resulting damage and the blood of the Constitution is on their hands forever.

    No one, no one in this country or World for that matter, will be able to rely on the law. It will be just a thought of the past. I believe only the following is the truth that sets us free.

    Give us help against the adversary, for the help of man is vain.
    Psalms 60:11

    Put not your faith in rulers, or in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
    Psalms 146:3

    And last but NOT least:

    See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
    Colossians 2:8

  364. Leo, this is another PRIVATE MESSAGE for you than a GENERAL POST. You are right about being a natural born citizen being the main argument. About a week ago, I saw a video clip (might have been YouTube) of Senator Schumer asking then nominee Associate Justice Alito what he considers to be a Natural Born Citizen. Alito stated that his current understanding is that it was someone who was born in United States to TWO U.S. citizens.

    [ed. I don’t recall that exact answer. Do you have a link?]

    After Alito said that, Senator Schumer accepted his answer & they moved on. However, this may be nothing. The Question & Answerer was about Arnold S. running for President someday. Now I did not catch the whole interchange between the two (except Alito’s definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is & Schumer did not challenge him on his answer) but if law would allow it Alito said he would be open to it. Again, this may be nothing. Supreme Court nominees can not give definitive answers to questions regarding hypothetical cases because it would then disqualify them from that case. So by Alito’s “Current” understanding of what is a Natural Born Citizen, the Supremes know that Obama is not constitutional qualified to be President. You are right that now because the Sec of States did not uphold the Constitution by not qualifying Obama (McCain as well who I voted for is also not a Natural Born Citizen) that the Supreme Court could intervene NOW. However, I am still given them the benefit of doubt that they are waiting to see if Congress (Legislative Branch) disqualifies Obama. I watched Scalia’s interview with Rose & he believes strongly in the Three Separate Branches. So maybe he & other justices (Only need 4 votes to hear case) are waiting to see if they do their job. If not then intervene, however cutting it close. After Jan 6th when Congress ratifies the Electoral College vote, that is when they have no more excuses. They have less than 2 weeks to intervene. If I understand correctly both your case & Cort’s will still be open (unless Monday they close them) & if the Supreme Court chooses to, hear them at that time. If they fail to act, then you are right when you posted “Now they have no excuse. The natural born citizen issue was squarely before them. All of the resulting damage and the blood of the Constitution are on their hands forever.” Also, IMHO the Supreme Court has more authority & duty to act on your cases than Bush v. Gore. They could have allowed Florida Legislative Branch to decide who the electors would vote for, which they planned to do after Fl. Supreme Courts last ruling, which is their right & then let Congress figure it out. However, the Supreme Court intervenes. As you know there were 2 decisions in favor of President Bush. I forgot the specific issues (I believe equal protection for the latter) of the cases but it was 5-4 & 7-2.

  365. [Ed. I repeat – it Doesn’t matter. It’s too late. yourConstitution is gone. Wave goodbye to it. you’ll never seek its kind again. Ignorance is probably bliss at this point. You have no Supreme Court. There is no “United” States. The experiment is over. Ben Franklin said, “It’s a Republic…if you can keep it.” Well, we didn’t. We lost it and it’s gone never to return.]


    Sorry, but there is no way you can go back to your Schizo Fun rock band and hold’em poker tournaments after you and Cort filed your cases with SCOTUS. You are on the razor’s edge of history-in-the-making, igniting the apocalyptic Mother of All Legal Battles to Preserve the Integrity of the Constitution when you “just filed papers” objecting to Obama/McCain’s NBC qualifications to be POTUS. If the commentary on your blog is any indication, you have excited thousands, if not millions, of patriots to support you and Cort with excellent research, moral support and prayers for success. I don’t think you realize that you’ve upset the Dems and Repubs, shocked millions of the electorate, enraged leftist-driven MSM, TV, Hollywood and aroused thousands of radical militants for an elected usurper. And, more to the point, you and Cort have Team Obama sweating it out, hoping SCOTUS will dismiss this suit as brought by a couple of psychos looking to upset his destiny to be president-messiah.

    If the MSM is already insinuating Blagojevich is crazy for “pay for play” sale of Senate seat, what do you suppose they will say and do to you? I believe THE “Originalist” Justice Scalia is fighting very hard to get your case accepted because, not taking it will have catastrophic consequences for the nation in future. On the hand, if SCOTUS does take it, a decision in your favor would be catastrophic to the leftist agenda to socialize America and there will be hell to pay in chaos, anarchy and the “burn baby burn” mantra of the radical 60s. Leo, stay strong, it ain’t over til its over and the fat lady sings. We are praying and keeping you and Cort before the Lord God Who is Just and True. I believe the decision to take it will be six to three.

  366. The Supreme Court will issue opinions on Monday.


    Leo, maybe they will issue a Summary Judgment for Cort? Again, they could of denied Friday & did not. The Supreme Court clerk told Cort that no decision until Monday before the conference ended. If they denied it, why write an opinion? If they want to punt this, remain silent. I mean is there in your opinion a need to have oral arguments. I don’t. Obama admits that at his website fight the smears: “ In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC”.


    This admission alone would make him not a Natural Born Citizen. Perhaps the Supreme Court will disqualify both Obama & McCain tomorrow, which will free the electors to vote for qualified candidates (Obama/Biden ticket would be voided) or they will instruct Congress to choose President /Vice President or new popular elections. Hey, one can dream right!

  367. Leo, I’m thinking (really hoping) that your strategerie here is to make sure that the Bickells’ are brought down in the event Cort wins. As I’ve suggested before, assuming a decision was made in favor of Cort on Friday (12/12), wouldn’t it make sense for SCOTUS to wait until the last possible moment before the College of Electors vote on Monday (12/15) because a decision on Friday would have given Team Obama the weekend — before the Electors vote — to issue some documentation or do or say something — to attempt to screw up an underlying basis for the Court’s decision?

    And, finally, it seems that for the first time you are electing to point out the obvious — your case on “natural born citizen” is “air tight”. It IS air tight! Therefore, HOW IN THE HELL CAN SCOTUS WRITE A DECISION essentially affirming Obama to be an Article II “natural born citizen”? IT simply can’t be done. (SCOTUS would have to deny Cort with no opinion or statement — can they do that and retain ANY credibility whatsoever?)

  368. Max,

    Here is the transcript from the exchange between Schumer and Alito at the Senate Confirmation Hearing on January 12, 2006.


    [Ed. Alito doesn’t define nbc.]


  369. I am still trying to find the link regarding Alito .

  370. What happened on plains radio regarding barack’s health and leo’s dismissing of the show??

  371. Leo,
    HI!! I have commented here before, but I just had a thought as to Obama/bc that may or may not be helpful based on my own experience, but it is too long to write here and also some personal info that I don’t want all over the net. Could you please email me at the above addy?


    [Ed. just make a comment and say its private. I read all comments and will no publish it if its marked as private.]

  372. RiskyWaters Says:

    Leo you won’t be back on Plains Radio? Really?

    That’s your choice Leo, but even weeks ago you said that if your case was denied that you would go back to playing poker. So after Monday I really didn’t expect to hear you on the show anymore anyway because you no longer have cases pending with the Supreme Court. Thank you for your efforts but really now come on, the natural born citizen issue seems to be an issue the Supreme Court finds irrelavant unless an attorney brings it up again after Obama actually takes his oath.

    And what becomes of this website after Monday? Do you shut it down, will you leave it open to questions or continue to post blogs?

  373. Your writings and research are so precise, I cannot imagine how they would dismiss the evidence that has been put before them, however if they do, then you are right, our Constitution is dead. Write a book while you can, your talent is amazing. You are a Patriot and I applaud you.

    [Ed. nobody would ever publish it, they won’t be allowed to.]

  374. Leo, maybe they will issue a Summary Judgment for Cort? Again, they could of denied Friday & did not. The Supreme Court clerk told Cort that no decision until Monday before the conference ended. If they denied it, why write an opinion? If they want to punt this, remain silent. I mean is there in your opinion a need to have oral arguments. I don’t. Obama admits that at his website fight the smears: “ In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC”.

    No way Scotus issues an summary opinion without hearing the opposing argument.

  375. Leo:

    Page 6 of the latest Globe groups your and Cort’s cases under the ilk of Berg’s case.

    So called political historian Will Silvestri is quoted as follows: “The Constitution says that the Presidents must have two U.S. Citizen parents OR be born on U.S. soil. It’s bad news if Obama was actually born in Kenya because under American law he couldn’t serve as President despite winning the election.

    It goes on to talk about Keyes case and Larry Sinclair. (Google)

  376. Foreign nationals residing in America are not under our jurisdiction, if they were we’d tax their foreign estates when they die.



    I still have faith that Justice Thomas to convince Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito to vote in favor of hearing Cort’s case with you, Leo, giving the best and brightest arguement ever for our Constitution! God Bless you and Cort, and God Bless America!

  378. It’s either a Summary Judgment or nothing tomorrow. They don’t need oral arguments. Again, Obama stats it flat out on his websites, his books that at Birth he had DUAL CITIZENSHIP, which makes him Not a Natural Born Citizen & ineligible to be President.

  379. The Rt. Rv. Stonewall Shelton, F. C. J. Says:

    Mr. Donofrio,
    There is one small flaw in everyone’s legalities. We in the United States do not like having things demanded of us. Even lawyers and courts are offended by it.
    The courts or even other politicians will not take you seriously if you just request things to be done. These areas will take you as being soft.
    Since these organizations and institutions belong to the American people they are the servants. They are there to serve The American Public.
    If you want them to give you respect and take you serious, change the word and attitude of demand to the word and attitude of command.
    Yes the word command with a stern fair attitude changes everything.
    A famous general from the 1940s said you have to command respect, you can not demand it. As Americans we are not in the position to demand anything. But we are in a position to command it done.

  380. Leo, again maybe nothing but at the end of their statement….

    …We will provide coverage of all developments.

  381. Leo,

    Alito doesn’t define NBC for Schumer but he is able to put his finger on the “under the jurisdiction of the United States” issue in relation to Schumer’s question of whether he would overturn children of illegals being citizens under the 14th amendment:

    You have to go a page forward in the NYT story that doctorbulldog linked to find this:

    “ALITO: Well, Senator, I don’t want to say anything that — could I answer the question, Senator? I don’t want to say anything that anybody will characterize as an argument that I am making on one side of this question or on the other side of the question. I know that an argument is being made by people who favor this kind of legislation based on the language under the jurisdiction of the United States. And I don’t know whether that will turn out — I don’t know whether it will come before me. I don’t know whether, when it’s analyzed, it will turn out to be a compelling argument or a frivolous argument or something in between. And I wouldn’t express an opinion. ”

    So that tells me he’s not ignorant on this issue.

    That said, I’ll be greatly surprised if the founders won’t be rolling over in their graves on Monday.

  382. You seem to cherry-pick legal precedent here.

    [Ed. And you don’t do enough research to understand the cases you read. Now, go look up this page http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/ogle.html and see of you can find where your flawed understanding of precedent is whack…. go do it now before reading below where it’s explained.]

    Moreover, a plain reading of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t put any caveats on citizenship for those “born or naturalized in the United States.”

    [Ed. Except that little caveat about “being subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which is actually in the text. So stop cherrypicking the statute….]

    How do you reconcile your position with the following cases?

    [ed see latest blog.]

    Dred Scott in 1857 said citizenship was established jus soli. Another significant case is United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. First, this quote:

    “Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

    It then goes on to say: “As appears upon the face of the [Fourteenth] amendment, as well as from the history of the times, [the Fourteenth Amendment] was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.”

    Next is Perkins v. ELG in 1939. In that case, a woman was born to Swedish parents (one naturalized, one not)

    [Ed. Wrong, wrong wrong. Elg’s mother, due to federal statute, became a US Citizen when the father was naturalized as did all Wives of naturalized men b/w 1790-1922. Derivatice citizenship. Look it up. It’s been quoted and linked to extensively here.]

    and was taken back to Sweden while a minor. Her parents remained in Sweden, while she returned to the United States after reaching majority. The Supreme Court had two findings: “]First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States” (italics in original). “Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties” (italics in original).

  383. Dear Leo, (is it ok to call you that?)

    First: I’d like to thank you for all of the excellent work that you have done on behalf of the American people and yourself, for the express purpose of upholding what is set forth in the U.S. Constitution. I respect you immensely for that, and I also am indebted to you for doing it, because it is something that I certainly would have done myself if I had known how to, but obviously it takes a man with special training, talents and above all, courage. You, sir, have all three and for that I am eternally grateful.

    Secondly: now that John McCain has been cleared as a natural born citizen, I have a question to ask about the voting of the electoral college. I saw a lot of the comments here, previous to mine, say that the electors could vote for Hillary now. Is this true? Was she on the ballot? Wouldn’t they now have to vote for someone that is actually on the ballot?

    Thirdly: you have done so much AMAZING research! It is my sincere hope that the Electors and Supreme Court Justices are reading your blog. You have been nothing but respectful, and you have carried yourself in a manner that would bring honor to the United States of America. Your motives have been pure and that is why I can’t imagine why the SCOTUS would not rule in our favor. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS CLEARLY NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and to ignore the situation or let it go on any longer is a travesty of justice. I can’t imagine any of the Justices wanting to have their names go down in History as being complicit in the downfall of our Country and/or being tied to biggest threat that we have ever had to our National Security!

    After reading “§ 212. Citizens and natives,” it is clear that Obama is not a natural born citizen because of this:
    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS.” It also goes on to say: “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.” How true, huh?

    God bless you, Leo!

    P.S. One quick question: are we entitled to have letters published in the editorial section of the newspaper as long as we follow the rules? In other words, can they reject our letters because they don’t want to publish information regarding your lawsuit or anything derogatory about Obama?

  384. John Fleming Says:

    Was doing my own reading on the 14th Amendment and I came across some House subcommittee testimony as it relates to immigration. Very interesting text, including the following in the opening statement by Subcommittee Chairman, Representative John Hostetler of Indiana:

    ” This question (of birthright citizenship) is critically important in light of the Yaser Hamdi case. Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents who were in the U.S. on temporary visas. He returned to Saudi Arabia as a small child and maintained little connection to the United State”

    Interestingly the focus of the hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims was::


    Just to be crystal clear – I am in no way implying that Mr. Obama is anything like Yaser Hamdi – but the type of exemption from the Constitution that Mr. Obama is attempting to exploit is similar to the type that allowed Hamdi to claim US Citizenship when he clearly had limited if any real allegiance to the US. That is, a misinterpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to citizenship, and the rights afforded by being a citizen.

    The meeting was on September 29, 2005 and the full text can be read here:


  385. Leo, Leo, Leo..

    You can’t let these idiots get to you. Everywhere you go, there is a buzz in the air, and that is solely due to your cases, and what you’ve brought to light. We think you’re a great guy, and look at how many people have written you, or are supporting your efforts? It’s amazing what you’ve accomplished with no media behind you. Heck, I should say what we ‘all’ accomplished considering the fact that we used the internet to get all this info out. But none the less, you’re our hero, dispite what you might think about the corrupted courts. ( And I do think you’re right about the clerk)

    He should of lost his job, and I truly believe that we should all write the Justices, ( In our own words) and tell them of our dissatisfaction on how they treated these cases, and/or the way they kept the clerk after he blantently went against court policy. Anthrax? Come on, give me a break, the court is about as lame as they come, and nobody is falling for their attempts at pushing off the issues here.

    Like you, I’m disqusted with the Court system, but more than that, I’m disqusted with the lame brain, ignore the truth, give it to me “My way” kind of mentality we’re seeing today… Ignorance isn’t bliss, and let me remind people once again…

    “If it fits, you must aquit”…….. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now!

    Again, Thanks Leo, we still love ya, so keep the faith.. ( at least in something) 🙂

  386. Is it possible scotus might end up agreeing that Obama is not qualified to be president but not on the remedy? For example they might say that Congress has elected Obama president and that Congress would need to impeach him if he is not eligible. The constitution doesn’t say what to do about a president found to be inelgible, but it does specify a process to remove a president. Dual citizenship is also an implied accusation of divided loyalty, giving aid and comfort to another country. A president doing this would likely be impeached.

  387. Correct me if Im wrong, but Obama said the Constitution is a flawed document

    he said the Constitution reflected flaws in American society at the time of the Founding.
    d –
    Here’s his quote:

    I think it’s a remarkable document…

    The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments…but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

    How can anyone argue that the Constitution when it enshrined the idea that some people weren’t really people, but 3/5ths a person, wasn’t deeply flawed?

    Anyway, you should tone down some of the defeatist and conspiratorial language:

    it Doesn’t matter. It’s too late. yourConstitution is gone. Wave goodbye to it. you’ll never seek its kind again.

    No, we still have a Constitution, Leo. You were trying to overturn more than 100 years of jurisprudence – inserting your view of history for that of the Court’s and Constitutional scholars. Even if you had a good case, you were going to have to present significantly more than what you did present. The court considered the history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982). And in that case, even though it was a 5-4 decision, the court was unanimous that a person born to illegal aliens was “within the jurisdiction” of the state she was born in!

    The scholarship over the past 200 years has been almost unanimous that natural born means born within the borders, and the few dissenting views have said that it means born within the borders to two people legally here.

    You’re not going to overcome that with what little you presented to the court. Take a look, for example at the briefs filed in Plyler.

    You presented an argument that was colorable, barely, but on which the Court had decided similar arguments numerous times in the past, and you failed to distinguish those other cases.

    It’s really not surprising that your case was denied.

  388. Mickie Says:
    December 14, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    …Write a book while you can, your talent is amazing. You are a Patriot and I applaud you.

    [Ed. nobody would ever publish it, they won’t be allowed to.]

    You can self-publish!

  389. You were right. Just saw it was denied. Does he have any other options?

  390. Leo:
    I just became aware of your efforts about a week ago and am amazed by the job you and your friends have accomplished. Thank God there are still a few good Americans tending the store. I thought of y’all when I read today’s ‘Word of Encouragement’ from CatholicExchange.com; here it is:True Grit!

    {Posted By Mark Shea On December 15, 2008 @ 12:00 am In Mark Shea, Words of Encouragement}

    Hebrews 10:36

    For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.

    Mark continues: Yesterday we discussed the fact that the Christian life entails the promise of power to do good and to overcome sin through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Today we are reminded that this grace really and truly cooperates with us and that we are “co-laborers” with Christ. This means that when we suffer, work, or bleed for the kingdom of God is truly we who are suffering, working, and bleeding. And this means we must exhibit some sheer grit and endurance to see it through to the end. But what we need not (and, indeed, cannot) do is exhibit that grit on our own steam. We must continually ask God to help us endure what must be endured so that, in the end, we can receive the crown and blessing that always accompany the cross of Christ. So ask for his grace. He promises you will receive it — and himself in eternal joy besides.
    Know that He is with Y’all,

  391. This is what Mr. Paul (at Federalist Blog) predicted on Mon-08-2008. It has happened as predicted.


    Cort’s injuction/stay application DENIED without COMMENT.

    Not surprised to some (I’m sure the silent) many of us!!!

    As predicted, SCOTUS has NO TIME, NO MONEY and NO ENERGY to waste on ill-prepared and ill-legally filed suits.

    On the very day that Phil Berg (with Cort, Leo and Manning) are in DC attempting to get MSM to cover their failed Press Conference, SCOTUS serves Mr. Berg:

    3-cases denied by Souter and with NO comment on Dec-9.




    37 years of legal history and no major WIN for Berg? LOL!!!

    27 years of legal history and no major WIN for Leo? LOL!!!

    0-yrs of legal history for Cort? And you expect to win? LOL!

    Let the circus continue. More filings and more dismissals.

    Meanwhile, DEMs, GoPs, MSM, US Govt agenda continues!!!

  392. I have never posted here before, I prefer to read all that I can and form my own opinions. I tend to agree with everything that Ive read on this site, but sadly as many have already pointed out, Dec 15th 2008 will be remembered as the day America, as we knew it, died. Contrary to what Michelle Obama says about anyone opposing Barack being a white racist, I am hispanic. I oppose him. Not because of his color. I would vote for any black man or woman I felt was qualified and ELIGIBLE. Even though I dont have proof, I do have my gut feelings, and like the Illinois fiasco, I feel this federal election is just another pay to play thing, and face it, Obama seemed to have had an endless stream of funds on hand, so I think someone’s pockets are being lined and padded.
    But dont give up the good fight Leo and Cort, I think I can safely say that you guys have tons of support, and remember “it aint over till the lady of generous porportions has belted out a tune”

  393. Neil Johnson Says:

    The challenge by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied by the Suprem Court Monday without comment.


  394. JP-research Says:

    I just finished calling all 10 of my Wisconsin electors and was received politely for the most part. The biggest argument offered was from the Dem. Party Hdqtrs. elector’s staff who said, “The 14th amendment makes it very clear: born in the US makes you a citizen” and I said, “But not natural born” and he stuck with his view. Then he said, “How is it that someone could get this far if they aren’t eligible? He – BHO – would never have run if he wasn’t eligible. And, all the people who elected him wouldn’t have voted for him.” I said I too was baffled but that I think it’s one of the Greatest Hoax on the American People. No one hung up on me. So, at least there’s a modicum of comity in my state.

  395. Leo, your are right on that the Supreme Court is no longer Supreme, just a kangaroo court….Hey the country wants Obama, let them have him. Think the Supremes or Congress will act in Jan…Not a chance. Roberts will have a big sheepish smile on while he swears Obama in. Today, the United States is no longer a Republic, but a dictatorship.

  396. JP-research Says:

    Stay and Injunction denied.

  397. Just reported by court in last hour (about). For sure this means the SCOTUS has denied the petition to hold up the electoral college vote. not sure if this means the court will not hear the case — Leo, can you comment?

    “The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
    to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied. “

  398. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has decided to not uphold the Constitution. They have let the case slide by without comment.

  399. This from SCOTUS blog
    MONDAY DECEMBER 15, 2008
    The application for stay an/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred tot he Court is denied.

  400. this is the day this Union of loosely formed States to make a COUNTRY of uniform loyalty and opinion is officially DECEASED, Dec. 15, 2008

    RIP — United States of America
    Killer, The Spureme Court of America

  401. RiskyWaters Says:

    And this puppy has been DENIED:


    Oh well, there’s always the pay to play scandal.

  402. […] Thanks to Leo Donfrio’s work, an excellent reference from the late 18th century sheds some light on how the authors of the Constitution would have understood the term “natural born citizen”. The below reference is from Vattel’s 1758 work, “THE LAW OF NATIONS”. […]

  403. So, it has been denied?

    Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
    Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
    Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
    Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
    Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A469) denied by the Court.

  404. southerncross Says:

    It’s OVER…………America’s PEOPLE LOST! Obama and the Democratic millionaires bought the election and sold the constitution. Now they have shown themselves the victors.

    The moneymen won………….Go home and enjoy your last christmas.

  405. Leo, I have seen this question below several times and I would also like to know the answer. it is hard for so many of us to believe the SCOTUS would not hear Cort’s case. Perhaps you answered a question like this and I missed it and your answer, but here is the question.

    Leo’s and Cort’s cases were listed as pending by SCOTUS when their “stays” were denied (12/8, 12/15). There is no listed denials of Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus for these pending cases. Does this mean the Writ of Certioran or Mandamus are included in their “stays” and since their stays were denied, their Writ of Certioran of Mandamus were also denied but just not listed?

    Another opinion going around is that the SCOTUS is waiting until the EC votes are counted/certified in Congress and Obama is officially President-elect before they take any action. Leaving it up to Congress to do the qualifying of Obama. I really don’t know what to think.

  406. I sat down with my husband and told him the news this evening. This will go down as the blackest day in the history of the US, that is if the true US survives.
    A county commissioner in NC is suing the state on its judicial system, not for anything pertaining to this. I just thought it ironic on a day where you commented on the judicial failures or collapse, that an actual official is trying to address it in his state. Try to get some well deserved rest, and keep in mind, there are like minded individuals still out here. I would offer words of encouragement, but it would just be inappropriate today. It is just that grave and deserves to be mourned. You & Cort did all you could do, please accept the thanks.

  407. What is Cort’s position? We.the people, shall fight on.

  408. Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas

    Yesterday, DecaLogosIntl.org reported that James Broe, one of 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed a motion for expedited discovery and authority to issue subpoenas in Washington State Supreme Court:

    Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion

    COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.

    Relief Requested

    Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of State’s office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.

    Plaintiffs are to serve the Secretary of State of the State of Washington with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 19, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel Stephen Pidgeon no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
    Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ ‘counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.

  409. Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008

    Leo, he cited that textbook in a footnote. Search the opinion for BLACKSTONE. Who do you think they find more persuasive?

    Vattel – Footnote 10

    Blackstone – Cited 10+ times in the opinion and multiple times in the dissent, including:

    “Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.”

    Why is Blackstone important? Wong Kim Ark cites Blackstone’s formulation of natural born approvingly:

    “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

    He also said, in his Commentaries:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

    Blackstone is much more likely to give the Court their original meaning of natural born than Vattel.

  410. I’m using a code process I’ve developed to unravel future events. On my blog, http://www.politicode.blogspot.com, I’ve provided 3 codes thus far. They can be used as background understanding to my code process. I have over 50 of them, but my blog is not the proper place to display them all.

    I will be completing a code for Barack Obama’s Cabinet Members once all of them are selected. The code process has given the truth everytime. Potential predictions.

  411. […] Be a natural born Citizen–(One who is born to parents who were both born in the United States–read the Framer to the 14th Amdt who defined Natural Born Citizen) […]

  412. Tristan Brown Says:

    Your agruement against Obama is a good. Although you are mistaking as to the eligability of McCain. He was born on a U.S. Naval Station. Having been a soldier myself; I know that U.S. military bases, even those abroad are considered to be U.S. soil. There, he IS a natural born citizen of the U.S. What kind of a country would we be if we deprived those who served us of that right and priveledge. Our soldiers serve with the knowledge that their children born overseas on a military instillation will still receive all rights and priveledges of those born on home soil.

    [Ed. Wrong. See McCain’s BC and his COLB. He was born in Colon Hospital, Panama – not on a military base. Furthermore, the US Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Manual clearly states that “Despite popular belief” children born on US military installations abroad do not get US citizenship. You are wrong on all counts. McCain is not a nbc and he should have stepped aside. McCain was an Obama facilitator. Accept it.]

  413. […] way Vattel did in 1758, the founders did in 1787 when they wrote Article II Section 1, and the way the author of the 14th Amendment did when he wrote the 14th Amendment?  That is, is it a requirement for both of your parents to be citizens of the United States at the […]

  414. Kevan Corkill Says:

    Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen. 🙂

  415. Horst Kirchner Says:

    Quite apart from the issue as to whether dual or foreign nationality of the parent of a candidate for the office of US president or VP is relevant, you need to know that until the Bancroft Treaties came into force (and again after they were repudiated), 1868-post WW II (or for more exact timeline see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Treaties ) Britain had “perpetual allegiance” (one of the causes of the War of 1812) and both the UK and the US tolerated dual nationality (the US within certain broad limits).

  416. McCain
    written by dafrog, January 28, 2009
    I keep seeing the same issue being brought up again and again about McCain and whether he is a natural born citizen. It seems that many of the posters forget that many things change over time, laws, territories etc.

    When McCain was born, the Canal Zone was a US territory, and as such was US soil. As such, the military base that was there was also US soil.

    [Ed. You’re just wrong about this. The US State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual clearly states that US Military installations abroad are NOT US soil and one born there does not receive citizenship (let alone natural born citizenship) by virture of being born there. It’s FAM 1116, look it up. It even says “Despite popular belief” etc. You’re just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Did I mention you were wrong? Yes, I did. But just in case, let me say it again. You’re wrong.]

    McCain was not born at Colon Panama, but was born at the medical clinic on the base.

    [Ed. Wrong, McCain’s birth certificate says he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama. Colon is a big Panamania city and this was the hospital. This is what McCain’s BC says and his COLB says the same thing “Colon Hospital, Colon Panama”. You are wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. In fact, you’re so wrong that I had to snip the rest of your wrong statements because at this point in time I can only assume you know you’re wrong and you’re trying to stir up BS… so good bye. I don’t have time for this. Snip… I appreciate some of your other comments, but this is not cool. This is trying to rewrite history. McCain was even more inelligible than Obama. Feel free to post about any other topic but this. McCain is NOT a nbc.]

  417. The Law of Nations was written into the Constitution.
    Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 – Powers of Congress
    Line 10

    “To define and punish . . .Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

    [Ed. That’s a pretty cool find. Nice one. “Law of Nations” is capitalized in the Document as well. I really do wonder if they were making reference to Vattel’s treatise. The full quote is: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;” ]

  418. Many Thanks Leo! Please see link below for Cris Ericson comment.

    [Ed. I’ll be watching Ms. Ericson’s claim. Very interesting. I suggest my readers follow the links… above.]

  419. wandering_joe Says:

    This is truly a question, no sarcasm is intended. Following this logic wouldn’t the citizenship of our relatives that emigrated to the US follow our family line down through the generations leaving everyone ineligible for the presidency?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: