Archive for December, 2011

THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 28, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper.  RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.”  The Herald article is entitled, Case of James McClure.  The author is…PUBLIUS.

Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers.  By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired.  My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet.  Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.

The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens.  This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth.  The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786.  Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody.  The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS.  Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution.  Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen.  That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.

The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again.  But the article makes clear that Madison’s administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship.  This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark.  Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.

I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Herald on October 10, 1811.  Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madison’s home state.  Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.

I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information.  I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.

The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches.  The internet is barren on this case.  Some of the necessary information isn’t even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.

Here are the images from the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer.  The Herald scan is much easier to read than the Enquirer scan.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

The Agnew Funeral.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Today we can finally bury, and lay to rest, the slander that Spiro Agnew, Vice President under Richard Nixon, did not meet the two citizen parent standard defined in Minor v. Happersett.

I was at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. yesterday and today double checking the information I found at Princeton’s amazing Firestone library earlier this week.  Before that, I was in Baltimore where I received a couple of important clues.

A few weeks ago, I was researching this issue at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, only blocks from where Spiro Agnew grew up.  I asked the head reference librarian to help me track down the 1910 census.  I was hoping it would provide more information than the 1920 and 1930 census info, which contain a serious discrepancy.   The 1920 census indicates Spiro’s father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born, which, if true, would mean Agnew was born to an alien.  This has been alleged as precedent for Obama, who was born of an alien father.

The 1930 census indicates that Spiro’s father Theodore had been naturalized by then.  It was also common knowledge that the 1920 census info contradicts a World War I draft registration card on file for Theodore Agnew dating back to September 12, 1918, which indicates he was naturalized just prior to Spiro’s birth on November 9, 1918.

In Baltimore, the librarian told me that Agnew’s father lived in Schenectady, N.Y. in 1910 and that I should check the census for that city.  He also warned me that the name might be spelled wrong so I should try various spellings.  This turned out to be quite prophetic.

At Princeton, I found catalogue records for many biographies on Spiro Agnew, but most of them were not available on the shelves.  I had to order them from a special annex and it took 24 hours for them to arrive.  Meanwhile, I began Googling these biographies and was able to unearth a very relevant fact from the snippet view at Google for, “What Makes Spiro Run: The Life And Times Of Spiro Agnew“, by Joseph Albright (published by Dodd, Mead & Company New York, 1972).  The snippet told me something I did not know, that Spiro’s father first shortened his full Greek name to Theodore Anagnost, not Agnew.

I then plugged the name “Theodore Anagnost” into the database at Ancestry.com and searched the Schenectady N.Y. area.  Direct hit.  And the Md. Historical Society librarian was spot on, the name was listed on the 1910 census, and Ancestry.com had it catalogued as both Theodore Anagnost as well as Amagnost.  It clearly shows that Theodore entered the U.S. in 1902 and that he was naturalized by the time this census was taken in 1910.  It also contains the correct year of birth, 1878, and it includes the other members of his family.

Here is a hi res scan of the 1910 census record.  (See lines 5-8.)  The birth year is identical to the year listed on the draft card as well.

The next day I returned to Princeton and the biographies were waiting for me.  Two of them confirmed all of the above and more.  The Albright book states that Spiro Agnew’s father was born on September 12, 1878, named Theofraste Spiro Anagnostopoulos.  He entered the United States on September 19, 1902 through the port of Hoboken, N.J.  But before we discuss more from that book, separate relevant details stated in, “Spiro Agnew’s America” by Theo Lippman, Jr. (W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York, 1972), must come first.

Lippman’s book states that Theodore Anagnost declared his intention to naturalize in 1906, and that he submitted his petition for naturalization in 1907.  The declaration and the petition are two different documents.

Back to the Albright book now, and he indicates that Theodore had become a United States citizen in 1909 and then changed his name again in 1911 to Theodore Agnew.  Albright’s book gives a lot of detail on the genealogy of Spiro’s parents.

Here is a PDF of the relevant pages from both books.

Albright’s book also includes important details which corroborate the accuracy of the 1910 census regarding other household members who were included in that census and who were also included in the book.  Albright mentions Theodore’s brother George, his girl cousin Angeliki, and a male cousin who had anglicized his Greek last name to Lambert.  All of these people are listed in the 1910 census right under Theodore Anagnost, and all of these people are mentioned on the same page in Albright’s book as having lived together in Schenectady.

I also tracked down a high res image of the World War I draft card which is right next to brother George’s on the microfilm at the National Archives.  They both registered for the draft on the same day, Theo’s birthday, September 12, 1918.  Furthermore, both of them were listed as having been naturalized.

I also took a hi-res scan at Nara of the 1920 census.  If you look a few spots down from Theodore Agnew’s family entry, you will see the entry for George Agnew’s family.  It’s obvious now that many mistakes were made.  Both men are listed as having entered the U.S. in 1887.  That is absolutely wrong.  Furthermore, it lists both men as aliens, and it lists their wives as aliens.  This is also not accurate according to the 1910 census, the 1918 draft cards, and two thoroughly researched biographies from Spiro Agnew’s heyday.

Spiro Agnew was born in the U.S. of two parents who were citizens.  Therefore, he was a “natural born Citizen”.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

New JustiaGate Article at American Thinker.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 14, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

The fearless American Thinker blog has just published a new article on JustiaGate by Dianna Cotter and myself:  JustiaGate: ‘Natural Born’ Supreme Court Citations Disappear.

You may comment at AT.

 

 

 

 

Permit Me A Diatribe.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 14, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Let’s talk about the Constitution.  This is a Document that provided the means by which justice could prevail.  Before it was created, there was slavery.  At first, the document allowed it to continue.  But the men who drafted it were humbled by the faith citizens had put in them and the blood of brothers who died for each other.  Their triumph over the tyranny of monarchs humbled them.  The creation of the nation changed them, changed the way they thought.

In order to end slavery, they needed to create jurisdiction over the South.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves.  After the revolution, Washington provided for their freedom and gave his entire estate to them to keep them free and safe.  The Revolution humbled him and changed him.

Some original provisions of the Constitution may seem counter-intuitive now, but in the end the Document was amended and slavery died.  Had they pushed too hard for it at first, there would never have been jurisdiction over the South.

The framers needed to create jurisdiction over the South thereby growing forces and using taxes available from the South.  Would Jefferson have commanded the respect of the South had he not owned slaves?  Food for thought.  It took longer than they hoped, but the Constitution got the job done and those who were previously slaves became equal citizens.

This week I’ve been listening to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.  Stephen Douglas makes me want to puke.  And some of the things Lincoln said do too.  But I am convinced Lincoln was playing chess the whole time.  He won that chess game, ended slavery and paid for that victory with a bullet to his skull.  Rest in peace, Abe.

Would slavery ever have ended had the Constitution not been written?  We don’t know.  But the world would be a very different place without the Document.  My point in all of this is to highlight just what a miracle of liberty the Constitution is.  It involved a process of thinking ahead and creative intuition.  It has kept this nation free, strong and proud.  Men willingly die for it.

So what it is to come of it?

We have told the world – rightfully – that our system of government is the best known to man.  We proclaim the public holiness of civil liberties in the Bill of Rights to all nations.  And hearing our call, the downtrodden flocked to us and made us great.

But as to those very liberties, the current federal occupants now say…”not so much”.  Suddenly, they tell us our jury system must no longer be available to us if one man – the President – decides we are to be taken in the middle of the night and locked in a small black box indefinitely and without due process of law.  (I don’t refer to the current President specifically, I refer to the office in general, and for decades to come.)

This is Constitutional depravity defined.

Why is this necessary? It’s certainly not.  Our system works brilliantly.  That’s why men die for it.

Our dear leaders now tells us in Senate Bill 1867 that we must forfeit our Constitutional safeguards.  Isn’t this a victory and concession to terrorists?  Because of their belligerent acts, our liberties are now required to be suspended?  How is that not a victory for terrorism?

True enemies hate our Constitution.  They know it stands as a wall of protection from foreign ideologies which we deplore.  And now our leaders are doing their dirty work for them.  I say that those who are taking our liberties away are in league with terrorists.  Treason can be indirect.  SB 1867 is treason.

But it’s not the first.  When Congress rendered the 5th Amendment power of presentment “obsolete”, that was treason.

And then we have the natural-born citizen clause.  They tell us that the children of Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il can be Commander In Chief of our armed forces.  Would that not be treason?

The 1st Amendment protects against the establishment of religion.  But it still says “In God We Trust” on federal reserve notes.  The God mentioned on the dollar bill is not my God.  The symbols of the pyramid and the eye do not represent my faith.  So why are they there?  The 1st Amendment does not allow for them, but they remain.  If we sanction even one exception for religion, we are paving the way to a funeral for the 1st Amendment.  What if  the majority wants Sharia law?  What if the minority wants Satanism?  My Father in heaven has no need for money.  And he doesn’t require worship in Congress or any municipal place.

He only requires the pure silence of your hearts… but our Constitution requires your loudest proclamations of faith.  Raise up your voices as one.  Surround the Document.  Shield it for your posterity.  It is bleeding and its blood now stains the very lips of usurpation.  The time is nigh, America.  Make a stand.  Stop Senate Bill 1867.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

 

 

 

 

The Dred Scott Decision Is Evil, Racist, And Off Limits.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 12, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

I am preparing a comprehensive treatise on the natural-born citizen clause.  And I want everyone to know my position as to the Dred Scott decision well before I publish.

Scott v. Sandford is the most horrific piece of racist garbage our federal judicial system has ever doled out.  My arguments will not rely upon that case or its holding.  I will only discuss the case in relation to Justice Horace Gray’s reference to it, since he discussed it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.  And I will not refer to Scott v. Sandford outside of examining Justice Gray’s own opinion of that case, since I cannot properly analyze Wong Kim Ark without discussing the precedents cited therein.

The Dred Scott decision is a damned blight upon this nation.  The reasoning of the majority (if a majority can even be said to have existed) is in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence and to any true notion of liberty.

My treatise will discuss in great detail why Obama, John McCain, and even Marco Rubio are not eligible to be POTUS.  But the arguments will stand alone as if the Dred Scott case did not exist.  That it does exist remains the most significant stigma upon the virtue of our nation’s highest court.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

JustiaGate: Tim Stanley Adds Disclaimer Regarding The Accuracy Of US Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

 

In a prior report, I suggested that Justia operatives were potentially facing prison sentences for multiple violations of the False Writings Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1018, since Justia’s versions of US Supreme Court cases contain a direct affirmation that one is viewing the “Full Text of Case”.  Therefore, if Justia intentionally scrubbed information from these cases, the affirmation would be intentionally fraudulent.

Today, I was informed by Dan Goodman that Justia recently added a disclaimer to their versions of US Supreme Court cases.  For example, go to Justia’s version of Minor v. Happersett and scroll to the bottom of the page, where it now states:

“Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.”

Justia continues to block all access to the Wayback Machine so that a full analysis of changes made to US Supreme Court cases previously published by Justia is impossible.  Furthermore, Justia’s allegation that the scrubbing was due to an unintentional coding error has been scientifically debunked.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]