|
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
New url: http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/
US Supreme Court case > NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE SUPREME COURT - ST | 2 Comments / Subscribe To Comments | Posted: Nov.10.2008 @ 7:40 am | Lasted edited: Nov.10.2008 @ 12:22 pm | NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER
On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.
The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.
The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd. Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.
Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the "natural born citizen" issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the "natural born citizen" test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.
The action was brought as a "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ. An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief. The Appellate Division case generated the following documents:
NJ Appellate Division Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief Judge Sabatino's initial response Supplemental Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief Fax letter to all parties regarding schedule for submitting briefs Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs
Letter to Judge Sabatino re: Motion for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment, Counts 1and 2 NJ Attorney General's reply brief for Secretary of State Wells Judge Sabatino's Opinion and Order, 5 pages
Plaintiff then submitted the case on an emergency basis to the New Jersey Supreme Court where a staff attorney reviewed it, requested 10 copies each of the Motion and 75 page appendix, and informed Plaintiff that a Supreme Court Justice would review it immediately with three possible scenarios unfolding: - the Supreme Court Justice could grant the application on their own - the Supreme Court Justice could deny the application on their own - the Supreme Court Justice could call in the other Justices to review the case Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was informed by telephone that his papers were in order and that other Justices of the Supreme Court had been brought in to discuss the case. Regardless, later that afternoon, the application for emergency relief was denied.
However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court's five page opinion – such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented – and relied upon "Movant's Papers" which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.
Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long: "This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."
This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review. Since "Movant's papers" are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.
Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the "national election". Plaintiff's terminology is of vital importance here. Plaintiff's use of the term "national election" includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the electoral college process.
Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008. However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket.
It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as "pending" on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application.
Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application. Justice Suoter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit. But now that Justice Suoter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.
A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application. This letter will be available at this site before it is actually submitted to the SCOTUS.
Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court. The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay. That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election. The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet.
The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the "natural born issue" determined once and for all. He didn't create a web site or request donations. The suit is self financed. However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas. More to follow. Developing. |
| |
| | |
cc, 11/11/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-11 8:36 PM (#3070 - in reply to #3041) By: Savvy
|
| | |
bttt... | |
| | |
US Supreme Court case > NJ CITIZEN LAW SUIT CHALLENGING 08' ELECTION- UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Nov.11.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.11.2008 @ 9:44 pm
UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY by way of sworn certification in the pending Supreme Court case, Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey:
1. At approximately 11:30 AM, on October 27, 2008, I faxed an official Appellate Division form "Fact Sheet On Application For Emergent Relief" to the chamber of Judge Sabatino concerning Appellant's need to file a Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs, as per N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-3(a)(2), regarding the failure of Respondent, Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, to adequately perform her statutory duty under N.J.S.A 19:13-22 and her Constitutional duty as per her oath of office regarding her dominion of security as to the integrity of ballots and the electoral process for the November 4th, 2008 election. Question 14 of the Fact Sheet requires a description of the relief sought. I asked for three things:
- an injunction compelling the Secretary of State to execute her statutory and Constitutional duty to make certain which candidates for President were eligible under Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution
- a stay of the defective ballots
- injunction for new ballots to be printed
2. Approximately two hours later, I was contacted by Judge Sabatino's law clerk, Matt Nunn, Esq., and informed that his Honor had denied the application, and that a fax was being sent to me including a letter from his Honor to such effect, but also stating that I was welcome to resubmit a more detailed fact sheet. Mr. Nunn told me that I was no longer limited to the constraints of the form for purposes of the supplemental fact sheet and that Judge Sabatino genuinely wanted to hear more.
3. Along with the letter from Judge Sabatino, I was faxed a list containing phone/fax numbers for the Hon. Philip Carchman, Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General's office with instructions to fax copies of all future papers submitted by me
4. I prepared and faxed a three page summary "Supplemental fact Sheet on Application For Emergent Relief" and forwarded it to Judge Sabatino's office at 6:10 PM that evening.
5. The next morning, I spoke with Mr. Nunn, and he informed me that Judges Sabatino and Carchman would entertain my application. I was then told to submit a Notice of Motion and an Appellate brief. But this didn't sit right with me. My fact sheet application and supplement clearly stated that I was going to file a "Complaint In Lie of Prerogative Writs" as a direct appeal as of right under N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-3(a)(2), but Mr. Nunn said the Judge wanted it in the form of a motion and appellate brief. I was given until 4:00 PM to write this out and also drive over an hour to Trenton. I was also told to send a letter to Judge Carchman, Secretary Wells and the Attorney General regarding the schedule of paper submission.
6. I put together a quick pleading sufficient to make my case as a Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs. I wrote "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" - as is required by N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-1 - on the motion form sheet, and I submitted my complaint and haphazard brief knowing that as long as I wrote "In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" on the pleading, then the case must, by law, be treated as a direct appeal, not a motion. The difference is procedurally critical. An action In Lieu of Prerogative Writs to compel a ministerial duty is allowed by direct appeal straight to the Appellate Division, and once filed can be immediately followed by a Motion for Summary Judgment without leave of the court, but rather by law and by right.
7. I was instructed to file my papers with Judge Sabatino's law clerk and not the Appellate Division Clerk's office. I thought this was odd, but being a Pro Se plaintiff, I trusted that this was proper. That evening, I filed the Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs with Judge Sabatino's law clerk and also gave him a $200 Money Order which I was told to bring. Mr. Nunn had me make it out to the "Clerk of the Appellate Divsion". I was given no receipt, no Docket number and no stamp for my records.
8. I stayed up through the night preparing a very thorough Motion for Summary Judgment and a much stronger, more thorough brief.
9. Early on October 29, 2008, I called Judge Sabatino's office and informed his receptionist that I would be submitting an additional filing with brief. Later that morning, Judge Sabatino's secretary called to inform me that his Honor would not accept any other papers from me. This was very strange. According to N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-2, a plaintiff in an action in lieu of prerogative writs may move for summary judgment in an action demanding the performance of a ministerial act or duty at any time after filing the original complaint. That meant I was entitled, by law, to file the motion for summary judgment and Judge Sabatino had no authority to deny me that right.
10. I then then prepared a letter to Judge Sabatino.The letter respectfully informed his office that I did not expect his Honor would accept an uninvited supplement to my original filing, nor would I disrespect the bench by attempting such, but rather, pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-2, I would be submitting the Motion For Summary Judgment according to the Rule of law.
11. Appellant arrived at the Court House later that afternoon with 9 copies of the bound Motion and supporting brief, affidavits, proposed orders and a money order for $30. Mr. Nunn spoke to me on the lobby phone and inquired as to why I had come to submit the Motion and brief since he had informed me earlier that his Honor would not be accepting another brief. I respectfully explained to Mr. Nunn that I was entitled by the rule of law, specifically N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-2, to file the Motion for Summary Judgment and brief. I also told Mr. Nunn that I did not want to impose on him or his Honor improperly and that I would simply file the Motion with the Clerk of the Appellate Division. To this, Mr. Nunn responded, "No. I'll come right down and get it," which he did.
12. Nunn met me in the lobby and accepted seven copies of the Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof as well as a Money Order for $30 made out to the Clerk of the Appellate Division. I inquired of Mr. Nunn as to why I had not received a docket number since I'd paid the $200 fee along with my pleadings. Nunn informed me that it was standard operating procedure that a docket number wouldn't be issued in instances like this. I asked him, if in the alternative, I could at least have my pleadings stamped by the Judge. I was informed by Nunn that his Honor had instructed his office not to give me "anything." That really got my attention. I've never heard of a case being dealt with in this manner.
13. Nunn asked me to wait while he served my papers on the Attorney General's office. And once again, I felt like this was very unorthodox. I was supposed to make service upon my adversary. That's not a job for the Judge's staff to do as a convenience to me. When Nunn returned, he gave me the AG's reply brief, which also did not have a docket number on it. Then the clerk handed me a copy of my Motion For Summary Judgment which had finally been stamped by Judge Sabatino, but still not docketed. I asked Mr. Nunn if this was to protect the candidates from bad publicity, but he just shrugged. Then I asked him if the candidates had been informed and I was then told that the Secretary of State had informed both candidates.
14. Sample ballots had arrived earlier in the mail that day, and later that evening I became aware of the candidate for the Socialist Workers Party, Roger Calero. The Socialist Workers Party gained official access to ballots in ten States. And, despite the fact that the Socialist Workers Party qualified to have their chosen candidate listed on those ballots, state election officials from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Washington have all, for good and legal cause, refused to list Mr. Calero on the ballots since, having been born in Nicaragua, he is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution. In those states, a stand-in candidate, Mr. James Harris, was listed in place of Mr. Calero.
15. I phoned Judge Sabatino's chambers, informed Nunn about Mr. Calero and requested to amend my pleadings so as to include demands that Mr. Calero also be removed from the ballots. But most important was the fact that this Calero matter proved that other Secretaries from various states were actually exercising their prescribed authority to protect ballots from fraudulent candidates whereas the defendant-Secretary of State here in New Jersey was remiss in allowing such a fraud to be perpetrated upon New Jersey voters. Mr. Nunn told me that Judge Sabatino wanted me to call the Elections Division and complain to them about Mr. Calero's name being on the ballots. Specifically, Mr. Nunn told me to "exhaust my administrative remedy". So I called that office and faxed a letter objecting to Mr. Calero being on the ballots. Then I called back Judge Sabatino's office for guidance as to making an amended complaint, as Nunn had told me to do, but my calls weren't taken.
16. Later that day, October 30, 2008, at approximately 5:00 PM, I received word from Mr. Nunn that Judge Sabatino had denied my application for emergency relief. Mr. Nunn actually suggested that I might appeal his Honor's decision, and I should speak with Mark Nealy, a staff attorney at the New Jersey Supreme Court. Why was Judge Sabatino's law clerk giving me Ex Parte communications pushing me to appeal a decision of his boss to a specific staff attorney at the NJ Supreme Court?
17. Then Mr. Nunn told me that the Judge had treated my original application as a "Motion" and not an "appeal" and that they were going to return my $200 money order. This is unprecedented. I never received a docket number, and now they wanted to give me my money back. Nunn then asked me if I wanted to pick it up, or would I rather he mailed it to me. I told him to hold onto it because I wasn't sure what all of this meant to the procedural aspects of the case.
18. At approximately 5:17 PM, I received a fax transmission containing Judge Sabatino's five page order and opinion dismissing the action and all relief requested. This was now four days past the date he specifically initiated such review by accepting this Pro Se Appellant's original submission of Appellate Division form, "Fact Sheet On Application of Emergency Relief" and supplement thereto. Judge Sabatino effectively ran the clock down to the election by four full days. The five page opinion doesn't discuss the Constitutional question at all; doesn't discuss the oath of office; doesn't discuss the undisputed fact that a high placed Elections Division official admitted the Secretary did nothing to verify the candidates; doesn't mention or pass judgment on my Motion for Summary judgment; does accept that the AG brief's contentions are convincing even though they are completely off point and specious.
19. Judge Sabatino's order appears to deny a "Motion For Leave to Appeal" even though Appellant never submitted such a Motion as Appellant was not involved in any lower court matter or controversy which would have invited such an interlocutory Appeal. Furthermore, Appellant, as to Question number 5 listed on his original Appellate Division form, "Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief", specifically answered "N/A". Question number 5 reads exactly as follows (emphasis added in original form, and not by Appellant):
"5. Are there any claims against any party below, either in this or a consolidated action, which have not been disposed of, including counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims and applications for counsel fees? IF SO, THE DECISION IS NOT FINAL, BUT RATHER INTERLOCUTORY, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE SOUGHT."
Once again, Appellant, to this question, answered, "N/A".
The front page of the NJ Appellate Division web site includes the following guidance to potential litigants:
"The Appellate Division considers appeals timely taken as of right from the final judgments of the Law Division and the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, in addition to the final decisions of State administrative agencies. Litigants requiring Appellate Division review of interlocutory or interim orders of a trial court or agency may do so only with leave of the Court." (Emphasis added.)
How could Judge Sabatino deny a "motion for leave to appeal" when no such motion had been made by me? Furthermore, I couldn't have made such a Motion even if I wanted to since I wasn't involved in a lower court case. My pleading was taken "as of right", no leave to appeal was necessary as is explicitly made clear on the Fact Sheet and on the front page of the Appellate Division web site.
(See http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/appdiv/index.htm )
The Fact Sheet On Application For Emergent Relief was Appellant's initial filing and Appellant's intentions were made explicitly clear in Question Number 1:
"1. What is the vicinage of the matter? (i.e, what judge, in what county or what agency entered the decision?)"
And to this, Appellant answered:
"The Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey. It will be filed as a Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs in the App. Div..."
Appellant's intention was clear and procedurally correct in that both the official Appellate Division form/Fact Sheet, as well as a three page letter supplement thereto, detailed exactly the nature of Appellants claim, a Complaint In Lieu Of Prerogative Writs, which, by demand of N.J. Ct. R, 2:2-3(a)(2), is the exclusive method for reviewing a final action or inaction of a state administrative agency or officer, such method being allowed by direct appeal to the Appellate Division. Judge Sabatino's order, at the bottom of page 5 states:
"Appellant's motion for leave to appeal the Secretary's alleged inaction is denied and his emergent application is consequently dismissed."
I became very upset in that the order and decision appeared to be pertaining to an action I never took, nor did I have standing or reason to take, from a procedural point of view. I made no "Motion For Leave To Appeal". This was never part of my case, but looking back on it now, it appears as if Appellant was being led somewhere he had no reason to go. Perhaps this is why Judge Sabatino wanted to give me back my original $200 Money Order.
I was a Pro Se party involved in one of the most complex legal situations one could ever imagine, and I was subjected to Judicial Misconduct and delay. Why did Judge Sabatino accept review in the first place? Why did he try to transform the nature of my pleadings? One possible answer springs forth: to stop the case from gaining the full attention of the US Supreme Court.
I expressed distress to Mr. Nunn over the phone and a total lack of respect for Judge Sabatino's order and opinion. I was very distraught. Mr. Nunn kept saying things like, "I tried for you," and also something to the effect of, "You raised good issues but there's other factors." At this time, I also mentioned to Mr. Nunn that myself and my sister, a retired prosecutor who helped with some of the legal research, had been subjected to electronic treachery via our private cell phones having been hacked. At this time, Mr. Nunn said something like, "You know which candidate was responsible for that, right? The candidate that's been known to pull that kind of thing right?" And then I told him, "Matt, stop. You've gone too far." I was very upset but I didn't have a clear suspect in mind. I had just sued the Secretary of State in her own backyard. I had tried to get both major candidates thrown off the ballots as well as attacking the eligibility of the Socialist Workers Party candidate. It could have been any of the above or supporters thereof. I felt like Mr. Nunn was trying to elicit a defamatory comment about one of the candidates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation had been taped.
20. Appellant stayed up through the night preparing a Motion For Emergency Injunctive Relief for submission to the New Jersey Supreme Court along with a seventy-five page appendix generated by this very unorthodox litigation.
21. The next morning I made my way to the US Supreme Court and was introduced to Staff Attorney Carol Huxe who took a serious look at my Motion, had a short talk with me about the case and then decided to accept the Motion for the review of a NJ Supreme Court Justice. She assured me that a Justice of the Supreme Court would examine my case and then she told me one of three outcomes would apply:
- a single Justice would deny the application
- a single Justice could grant the emergency relief
- a single Justice could call in the other Justices on an emergency basis
22. Later that afternoon, I spoke with Ms. Huxe on the phone, and she informed me that my papers were in good shape and that the the Justices were looking it over and to expect a decision within the next 45 minutes.
23. About ten minutes later, I received a phone-call from a clerk at the NJ Supreme Court. I was told that an order had been written and I should expect it by FAX as soon as we hung up the phone. They then faxed me an order from the New Jersey Supreme Court, Justice Virginia A, Long, denying my motion for emergency relief. Here is the full text of the denial motion:
"This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to RULE 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied." (Emphasis added.)
This particular wording is very significant for two reasons. First, while it cross references the lower court case, it makes no mention of Sabatino, his order or his five page decision. This has the effect of causing an incredible procedural legal right to accrue in that it gave me the proper authority to bring my case, on an emergency basis, directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Judge Sabatino's order and decision never made any reference to the Constitutional issues involved in the case. But Justice Virginia Long's carefully worded order specifically relied upon "movant's papers", and movant's papers include a Constitutional issue of first impression as to the "natural born citizen" clause which was now ripe to be put squarely before the United States Supreme Court for the first time in US history.
24. I then called the US Supreme Court and left a message for the stay clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, but received no return phone call.
25. Over the weekend of Nov1st and 2nd, I prepared a twenty page Application For Emergency Stay according to Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23. An application seeking review of a state court matter must be addressed to the Justice for the Circuit the state is in. For New Jersey, it's Justice Souter. According to the common practice involved with Rule 22, an emergency application must be read by the Justice it is addressed to on the same day it's filed. The reason for this is that, if it is denied, the Appellant is entitled to resubmit it to any other Justice of his choice. My second choice was Justice Clarence Thomas.
On Sunday evening, I left New Jersey in order to be in DC to file the application before the court closed at 4:30 PM. This would assure that the Supreme Court had a chance to stay the popular vote in the National Election before election day polls opened.
26. The Application For Emergency Stay was filed by me on Monday November 3rd, 2008, at 3:33 PM. A few minutes later, while still in the Supreme Court, I phoned the Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, and we spoke for 7:00 minutes (according to my phone log). I told Mr. Bickell the whole story insisting that the Court Rule required the Application to be delivered promptly to Justice Souter. Mr. Bickell assured me that Justice Souter would have the case on his desk that evening if my papers were in order, which they were.
It was very important that the Court Rules be followed since I didn't expect Justice Souter to grant the application, but I was ready to resubmit it to Justice Clarence Thomas with along with a letter to His Honor and ten copies of the original application shoulld he pass it on to the entire Court.
27. I arrived at the SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM, then went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes (as shown by my phone log) to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Souter's desk as was required by Rule 22(1):
"1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief." (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Bickell agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Souter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.
"Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."
It's important that the disposition be delivered by "speedy means" because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).
28. The next day, election day, I received no message from the Court. I went back to the SCOTUS on Election Day with my sister who is also retired from the practice of law (she was an Assistant DA in Detroit for many years), and was told Mr. Bickell wasn't available to speak with me. And he was not picking up his phone.
29. On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickell and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Souter because Mr. Bickell didn't think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. He made a substantive law judgment thereby effectively impersonating a Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Bickell told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari and since I didn't then my stay application was defective. And that's not only illegal for him to make such a decision, but this decision itself is not grounded in law or precedent, but rather the exact opposite. And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :
- I followed the Court Rules perfectly
- he and I spoke all about this on Monday in a seven minute phone conversation wherein he agreed to forward the Application
- the case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ
- the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary since the court decided to treat the Stay application as a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
It's not the Clerk's job job to play Supreme Court Justice. The stay clerk's job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickell basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own. That must be criminal in some way, perhaps impersonating a US Supreme Court Justice, or subordination of Judicial intent? It's just wrong and Mr. Bickell needs to be called on it.Either he did this on his own volition or somebody pressured him to do it. After explaining the precedent in Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case.[See Bush v. Gore, page 1, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]
Mr. Bickell also stated that, "Justice Souter will deny it and so will Justice Thomas", but I wouldn't let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.
30. The next day, I checked the Supreme Court Docket and the case had finally been docketed but in a completely incorrect manner. Mr. Bickell docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my recording of the original Docket):
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Three glaring errors:
- The case was actually filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th as Mr. Bickell had listed above.
- My application was for a "Stay" not an "injunction". Filing for an injunction does not bring expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review the SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.
- I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air. He made it up out of the blue. Nothing in my Application indicates I intended to file a full Petition for Write of Certiorari. There was no time for that. The proper procedural tool was a Stay application as per the precedent set in Bush v. Gore.
31. I then called Mr. Bickell and left three loud and direct messages to the effect of, "Fix my docket or I'm going to suggest criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the Clerk's office." I also told Mr. Bickell that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I'd kept solid phone records and that my pleadings were stamped, "Nov. 3rd."
32. Later than morning, I checked the US Supreme Court docket search engine again, and saw that Mr. Bickell had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also now had it listed as a "Stay" application.
However, this second Docket listing was equally bizarre. Whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Souter had already denied the Stay application a day earlier on Nov. 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket listed no such disposition.
Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears today, Nov. 11th:
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this makes any sense. Calling this activity "unorthodox" is to be very kind. It's Judicial misconduct and perhaps it's even worse.
The reference to a "pending" Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the favor-ability of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial is "without prejudice". If I were actually in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., which I'm not, then the denial might be considered "without prejudice", and in that case, Mr. Bickell might , once again, decide not to pass on the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a full Petition, so the Docket is still incorrect as I intend to resubmit the "Stay Application" this week and the case will live or die on the resubmission.
These Court Rules are no joke. They have a purpose. On Monday November 3rd, Mr. Bickell disposed of my Application acting as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice. That's certainly bad enough, if not criminal, but then he did nothing between then and Thursday November 6th to notify me, certainly not by "speedy means", of the disposition of my Stay Application. This is Judicial misconduct.
Mr. Bickell took my cell number on Monday Nov. 3rd, and had I been notified properly, by a phone call, that my Stay Application was not going to be forwarded to Justice Souter, then I could have corrected Mr. Bickell as I did on Thursday Nov. 6th.
This case was stopped in its tracks starting in the Appellate Division and leading right to the US Supreme Court. The shame of the delay lies in the fact that the case was bi-partisan and should have been decided before the election when nobody knew what the outcome would be. Now, once Obama is disqualified, which I believe will be the final disposition of this case, it's going to cause so much more pain to the country.
The law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency just as the law and the facts of this case would have had the power to also strip McCain of the Presidency if he had won. I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well as Obama.
This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business. And the citizens of this country should be angry that this institution has slipped to this level.
"I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment."
______________________________________
Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se
(see signature page)
US Supreme Court case > NATURAL BORN CITIZEN "AT BIRTH"? - STANDING - WARNING REGARDING DEFAMATORY COMMENTS
5 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Nov.11.2008 @ 1:11 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.11.2008 @ 2:24 pm
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN "AT BIRTH"? - STANDING - WARNING REGARDING ALL DEFAMATORY COMMENTS POSTED ABOUT LEO C. DONOFRIO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN "AT BIRTH"?
Throughout the Berg vs Obama ordeal the issue of "standing" was always going to stop Mr. Berg's case, a case which has consistently failed to zero in on the main issue, whether Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen "at birth", which Obama was not, since he had dual nationality at birth and was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya as well as the USA. If Mr. Obama wasn't a natural born citizen "at birth" he can never satisfy the requirement. Mr. Berg's case touches on everything but the main issue and as such it has no chance of succeeding even if he did have standing, which he most certainly does not.
To be a naturally born citizen, this is the issue. You are either "born" one or you are not, and if not, you can't be President. The 14th Amendment can make one a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen". This is the backbone of my case. Had the US legislature, and the States who ratified the 14th Amendment, sought to bestow "natural born citizen" status, then the 14th Amendment would say so, but it does not. It confers "citizen" status, and only if the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
While issues concerning Obama's birth certificate and his time spent in Indonesia might effect his actual "citizenship", the case I have made does not rely in any way upon those questions. My argument is much more simple to prove and understand. Obama's father was a Kenyan national and so, regardless of where Obama was born, he was "at birth" subject to the laws of both the United States and of Kenya and as such he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and cannot hold the office of President. It's really that simple.
The nature of the issue flows from the word, "born". The status required by Article 2, Section 1, must be present "at birth". To be a "natural born citizen" there must be nothing unnatural about your citizenship "at birth". Natural, in this context, means to be unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. Regardless of the fact that Obama came to reside in the United States, at the time of his birth another country could also claim him as its own and vice versa.
That is the essence of my case as to Obama, and it was the same argument I made as to McCain who was also not eligible to be President. While this might seem unfair, such unfairness must be respected as the guardian to the slippery slope inherent in making exceptions to the rule. The final conclusion in my SCOTUS stay application was as follows:
Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that while the limitations of our Constitution may at times appear unfair, it is important to remember that it is the restrictions which hold us to the Document, as much as it is the freedoms that bind us together as a nation.
STANDING
As a New Jersey citizen, I have proper standing. In fact, my standing wasn't challenged by the NJ Attorney General's office in their reply brief in defense of the Secretary of State, nor was my standing challenged by Judge Sabatino in his five page opinion from the NJ Appellate Division. Despite there having been no challenges to my standing raised below, out of respect for the United States Supreme Court, I did address the issue in my application for an emergency stay as follows:
Appellant's standing was not challenged in Respondent's reply brief, nor was it challenged in his Honorable Sabatino's order and decision. However, Appellant discusses the issue below in respect to this most Honorable Court's superior jurisdiction. In Ridgewood Education Association v Ridgewood Board Of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. (1995)), the Court stated, "We see no reason why this State's historic liberal approaches to the issue of standing in general....should not apply to taxpayer suits challenging the quasi-legislative actions of local boards of education." Silverman v. Board of Ed., Tp. of Millburn, 134 N.J. Super. 253, 257-58 (Law Div.), aff'd o.b. 131 N.J. Super. 435 (App. Div. 1975).
The policies of justice regarding the sanctity of voting rights were also stated in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178, 814 A.2d 1028 (October 2, 2002). Although the petitioner bringing suit in that case was a political party, the voting rights discussed and protected were those of individuals. Therefore, the reasoning of that case should apply when the petitioner is an individual voter.
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.
"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S 5, 6 (2000)
And finally, Appellant's fundamental right to live in the United States governed by a President and Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally eligible to the office of President is also threatened. Since this action is so very grounded in the interests of justice, and supported by all of the above, Appellant respectfully requests that this court recognize his standing.
While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice.
Due to the impending Electoral College meeting, a genuine emergency exists and the case must be resolved by the US Supreme Court, and it will be resolved by the Supreme Court unless the SCOTUS Clerk's office interferes once again with the next phase of this litigation, that being my letter to Justice Clarence Thomas which is attached to my renewed application for an Emergency Stay of the 2008 national election.
Later today, I will release my letter to Justice Thomas as a sworn certification detailing the various unorthodox judicial activity my case has suffered. The case is officially named, "Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey".
PENDING DEFAMATION SUITS
To whom it may concern,
I have seen my good name made filthy by various comments on blogs regarding my law license. This coupled with the Judicial misconduct I was privy to and the clerical sabotage the case has been subjected to in the US Supreme Court, evidence that my case vs. the New Jersey Secretary of State has strong merit and is causing fear to those who may be potentially effected by the case.
For the record, I was admitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey and the Federal District Courts in 1991. I graduated from St. John's University, School of Law in 1990. I retired my law license a few years back to pursue my love of the arts and golf. Last year, I found that I had a skill for tournament poker and in 2008, I turned pro and have won two significant tournaments this year including a World Series of Poker Circuit event Gold/Diamond ring.
You may see my Bluff Magazine profile here:
https://www.Bluff Magazine.com/players/leo-donofrio/42071/player-profile.asp
My law license is clean as a whistle and I may return to practice law at any time simply by writing a letter and paying NJ Client Protection fees to the State of New Jersey.
Be warned, whether you are making comments or hosting comments at a blog or website, I will sue, for defamation, any responsible parties. Unfortunately, if they are not removed from his blog, I will be forced to set an example and have my personal attorney file a defamation suit immediately.
I will not sit by and watch my good name by made filthy just because I brought a fair and legal law suit which is now properly before the US Supreme Court.
Very Truly Yours,
Leo C. Donofrio
| |
| Posted 2008-11-11 11:45 PM (#3077 - in reply to #3071) By: rapndiamond
|
| | |
To the top. | |
| Posted 2008-11-12 9:40 AM (#3084 - in reply to #3077) By: marchingon
|
| | |
Posted: Nov.12.2008 @ 11:46 am | Lasted edited: Nov.12.2008 @ 2:47 pm
UPDATED: 2:10 PM: Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public. THREE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED:
1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.
2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification of such disposition of my case according to his interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 22(6) which states:
"6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."
Mr. Bickell insisted that by "appropriately speedy means", the Court Rule only demands he use ordinary mail. I then asked him how is that different from the ordinary means by which you notify litigants as to the disposition of their cases? And he replied, "It's the same." And I said, then how is that by "speedy means"? And he said I wasn't entitled to a phone call or anything else. And I said, "Then it's your official position that Rule 22(6) calls for nothing more than the same notification as an ordinary case and that the words "appropriately speedy means" really have no special meaning at all. And to this he replied, "That's my official position."
He also stated that he sent me a letter informing me of the disposition of my case. I don't know what he means. On Thursday, Nov. 6th, by way of a phone conversation that I initiated, he informed me that he decided not to submit my Emergency Stay Application, which I filed four days earlier on November 3rd, to Justice Souter, which as I've said before was blatant Clerical misconduct since it's not his job to play Supreme Court Justice. Regardless, he never sent me a letter stating that he disposed of the case on his own. After speaking to him on Thursday, he agreed to finally Docket the case. But he did so erroneously as I have previously documented. On Friday morning, he somewhat corrected the Docket, but he also made it reflect that Justice Souter had already decided the case. And then he sent me a letter as to Justice Souter's denial dated November 6th.
Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage.
This is truly unprecedented, my friends.
3. Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.
I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So Im asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ New url: http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/
| |
| Posted 2008-11-12 1:22 PM (#3091 - in reply to #3077) By: rapndiamond
|
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-15 7:01 PM (#3219 - in reply to #3041) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Saturday November 15, 2008 OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN "AT BIRTH" - AS SUCH, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEITHER WERE THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, HENCE THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE US CONSTITUTION
Posted: Nov.15.2008 @ 10:06 am | Lasted edited: Nov.15.2008 @ 9:16 pm [UPDATE: 10:15 Audio file of Radio interview with Leo Donofrio on Thursday Nov. 13 ...on Plains Radio.] [UPDATE: 3:39 PM.
(This blog post below contains the single most controlling legal precedent establishing Senator Barack Obama's ineligibility to be President under the Constitution. So I am leaving this blog post at the top of the blog for the next few days. Please study its simple premise.) Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;
That's it right there. (Emphasis added.) The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation. But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.]
The website is updated frequently, visit for more:
Natural Born Citizen
Comments are worth reading, too.
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:34 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-16 6:35 AM (#3225 - in reply to #3219) By: Philomena
|
| | |
The Obama "Fight the Smears" website parses that he is a "native citizen of the United States." They also quote from their related site, FactCheck.org: "As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate?source=source=sem-pm-fts-bc-search-us&gclid=CKGQje2m0pYCFQhJagodC1Df3Q What does "native citizen" mean? Is it the same as "natural born"? Evidently, not necessarily. The conclusion may not be accurate, but here's a good explanation of the difference. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty
By: Jill A. Pryor
Yale Law Journal, 881, 1988 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ... United States Constitution, article II
Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution1 has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.2 It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,3 do not.4 But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,5 qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.6 Read more ... | |
| Posted 2008-11-16 2:40 PM (#3236 - in reply to #3225) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Top | |
| Posted 2008-11-17 12:08 PM (#3255 - in reply to #3236) By: marchingon
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Tuesday November 18, 2008
Leo Donofrio will be interviewed on Plains Radio tonight at 9:00 PM EST.
Leo Donofrio will be interviewed on the Alan Stang program, Nov. 18 at 8:00 AM EST. ***LEO DONOFRIO OFFICIALLY RENEWS EMERGENCY STAY APPLICATION CHALLENGING 2008 ELECTION - EMERGENCY STAY APPLICATION RENEWED TO JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS - SUBMITTED AT 7:46 AM, NOV. 17, 2008***
Posted Nov. 17, 2008 @ 10:29 am | Lasted edited: Nov.17.2008 @ 12:27 pm On Friday Nov. 14, 2008, Leo C. Donofrio sent, by US Postal Express Mail, a letter, as required by Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court - William K. Suter - requesting his Emergency Stay Application as to the national election be renewed to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by right of law, specifically Supreme Court Rule 22.4 .
As of 1:17 PM the renewed application has not been updated to the US Supreme Court automated Docket.
According to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, the Clerk is demanded to "transmit it promptly" to the Justice it is addressed to. Please recall that on Nov. 3rd, Leo Donofrio originally submitted this same emergency stay application to the US Supreme Court. Despite the stay clerk - Mr. Danny Bickell - having assured Leo Donofrio that the application would be given to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter that night, it was not transmitted promptly. In fact, it was not transmitted at all after Mr. Bickell, having made an illegal and improper substantive judgment of law, thereby denied the application on his own volition.
The emergency stay application was eventually submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter, four days late, on November 6, after Mr. Bickell was forced to concede that his denial had been improper.
The emergency stay application, having been brought to the US Supreme Court from a denial of the New Jersey Supreme Court, was required by Supreme Court Rule 22.3 to be submitted to Justice Souter as he is the Justice assigned to the Third Circuit which includes New Jersey. The application was denied by Justice Souter on Nov. 6, and such denial therefore triggered Leo Donofrio's legal right, under Rule 22.4 to renew the emergency stay application to "any other Justice." Mr. Donofrio has chosen to renew the application to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
Hopefully, this time, the emergency stay application will be promptly transmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
The renewed application was delivered to the US Supreme Court Clerk's office at exactly 7:46 AM by US Postal Express Mail. (Click link for US Postal proof of delivery.)
The website is updated frequently, visit for more (comments are woth reading, too:
Natural Born Citizen The website is updated frequently, visit for more (comments are woth reading, too:
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:31 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-17 4:06 PM (#3262 - in reply to #3225) By: Philomena
|
| | |
cc, 11/18/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-18 7:24 PM (#3308 - in reply to #3225) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Wednesday November 19, 2008 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS SCHEDULED FOR FULL CONFERENCE, LEO DONOFRIO'S NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF MULTIPLE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CANDIDATES, INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA.
Posted: Nov.19.2008 @ 4:49 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.19.2008 @ 4:37 pm Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court - was denied - and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.
On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008.
It is not known at this time the exact details of how the case came to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference". This blog will be updated as details emerge. Below is a screen-shot of the docket entry: | No. 08A407 |
| | Title: | | Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant | | v. | | Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State |
| | Docketed: | | | Lower Ct: | Supreme Court of New Jersey |
| Case Nos.: | (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number) |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | Nov 3 2008 | Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. | | Nov 6 2008 | Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter. | | Nov 14 2008 | Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas. | | Nov 19 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008. Website: Natural Born Citizen |
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:28 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-19 2:50 PM (#3358 - in reply to #3262) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Excellent. I'm making sure to mention this case when I'm on air at every opportunity.
| |
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 10:45 AM (#3377 - in reply to #3359) By: marchingon
|
| | |
cc, 11/20/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 7:12 PM (#3408 - in reply to #3377) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Thursday November 20, 2008 Posted: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:20 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:31 pm | US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. |
US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY ACTION IN NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.
We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.
My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.
The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.
What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000): "The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)
It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.
Rather than explain the intense pre-requisites pertaining to a stay surviving denial, I've uploaded the following page from SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, the ultimate SCOTUS resource:
Photo of Document: http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:29 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-20 7:56 PM (#3416 - in reply to #3262) By: Philomena
|
| | |
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ website down ... see explanation at ... http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1046&posts=2 | |
| Posted 2008-11-22 2:03 PM (#3509 - in reply to #3416) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Friday November 21, 2008
Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION. [MEDIA UPDATE:] Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case. Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public. Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale tonight at 9:00 PM EST. Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere at 11:00 PM EST as well. Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008" before all nine Supreme Court Justices.
I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file - not including all relevant documents - will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.
A copy of the official complaint - by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form - will be uploaded to this blog shortly.
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
Because the above website is unavailable, I have gathered the update from cached:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ScQJM5XMP68J:www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/+http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:30 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-22 2:45 PM (#3511 - in reply to #3416) By: Philomena
|
| | |
DONOFRIO UPDATE Saturday November 22, 2008 NEW OFFICIAL BLOG OF LEO DONOFRIO, Esq. - NJ CITIZEN CHALLENGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE '08 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN THE US SUPREME COURT
Saturday, November 22, 2008
By Leo Donofrio Yesterday, Nov. 21 2008, my previous blog - blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen - was taken down as was the entire blogtext.org network.
I have relocated here to Blogger.com. Mirror sites containing the exact content have been (or will be shortly) set up. Everybody is hereby authorized to mirror the contents of this blog. The following sites are trusted by me to have exact content:
ZAPEM is up now
LanLamphere.com will have a mirror up shortly. Lan also has in depth radio interviews with me.
The Plains Radio Network also has in depth interviews with me. http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:29 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-22 4:39 PM (#3517 - in reply to #3511) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Review | |
| Posted 2008-11-22 6:50 PM (#3527 - in reply to #3517) By: Savvy
|
| | |
UPDATE Sunday November 23, 2008 DONOFRIO FORWARDS TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS OFFICIAL ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST SCOTUS STAY CLERK DANNY BICKELL This past week, Leo C. Donofrio forwarded to the Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts an official allegation of misconduct against SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell.
United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now "Distributed for Conference of Dec. 5th, 2008" to the full Court meeting in private on that date. The case was the subject of previous sabotage by SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell (as well as judicial misconduct by NJ Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino). Bickell, after receiving the emergency stay application which requested extraordinary relief to stay the national election, took it upon himself to deny the application on the very time sensitive date it was filed, Nov. 3, a day before the election day popular vote. As it stands, this case, and the Presidency, now rest in the hands of the nine Supreme Justices, a situation that could have come to pass prior to the votes being counted on election day had Mr. Bickell actually done the job he's paid to do - be a clerk - as opposed to his specious illegal attempt to play Supreme Court Justice and overrule the long standing precedent of McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976). Please note that the link provided goes to the 5th Circuit follow up action as all links to the actual Supreme Court decision appear to have been mysteriously cut off. The McCarthy v. Briscoe case provides multiple controlling precedent to the justiciability of the action now before the Supreme Court. As of the time this blog was posted, this Supreme Court decision can't be found online...anywhere. Hopefully, broken links to the case will be resolved as this blog makes the rounds.
The American people need to familiarize themselves with McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) (check note 1 when you find the case) in order to understand the precedent which supports the relief requested by Donofrio.
That case is relevant as to the procedural grounds Mr. Bickell incorrectly (and illegally) applied in denying to pass on Donofrio's stay application. But more important is that the case also provides supporting precedent for Donofrio in that US Supreme Court Justice Powell, late in the 1976 Presidential cycle, intervened on behalf of 3rd party candidate Eugene McCarthy, and forced the Texas Secretary of State to include McCarthy on the ballots after McCarthy made an emergency application to the Supreme Court.
In the first count of Donofrio's stay application, he had requested the SCOTUS remove the names of Obama, McCain and Calero from New Jersey ballots. (His second count also requested that the SCOTUS stay the national election.) McCarthy v. Briscoe stands for the precedent that the SCOTUS has the power to order a Secretary of State to include or remove names from ballots when a Constitutional issue has been invoked.
The case is also procedurally relevant because Bickell told Donofrio he didn't submit the stay application to Justice Souter because it failed to meet the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 23.3 in that Donofrio's NJ Supreme Court request for emergency relief used the words "injunctive relief" instead of the word "stay" and therefore Donofrio had failed to request a stay in the lower court and was not thereafter allowed to come to the US Supreme Court with such a request.
Bickell was eventually forced to docket the case. But something remains very wrong in our highest court when this entity could wield so much power over our nation as to be responsible for picking and choosing which cases our Supreme Court Justices actually see. Below is a list of reasons people should be calling for his immediate resignation:
1. Donofrio did request a "stay" in his initial Appellate Division complaint. Also, the NJ Attorney General's office argued, in their reply brief, against the court issuing a "stay".
2. Donofrio's NJ Supreme Court motion relied on his full lower court record when he requested a "Motion for injunctive relief" from the NJ Supreme Court by way of a signed certification and the submission of a 75 page appendix which Bickell did not have in his possession to review.
3. A stay is "injunctive relief". Any first year law student would know that. But Mr. Bickell is a staff attorney at the United States Supreme Court. He knew damn well that the interference he ran was willfull misconduct.
4. The case has actually been distributed for conference of all nine Justices, a situation Bickell tried to prevent.
5. The case McCarthy v. Briscoe stated,
"Indeed, an application styled as one of for a stay, if it in fact seeks some form of affirmative relief, may be treated as a request for an injunction and disposed of accordingly."
Isn't that just amazing. Stay clerk Bickell tried to overturn historic United States Supreme Court precedent when he refused to pass on my stay application based on a false semantic attack not even grounded in law, but rather directly opposed to it. Had Bickell treated the emergency application with the dignity it deserved, the issue of whether Obama and McCain were Constitutionally eligible to be President could have been settled prior to the popular vote.
Had Bickell passed the stay application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, Souter would have denied it straight away, as he did when it was passed on to him on Nov. 6. Then if Bickell had followed US Supreme Court Rule 22.6, which required that Donofrio be notified of the disposition of the stay application "by appropriately speedy means", Donofrio could have renewed the application to Justice Clarence Thomas on the evening of Nov. 3, or the next morning at the latest, and the SCOTUS could have stayed the popular vote until they made a decision on the merits.
But Bickell not only failed to pass on the application, he never gave Donofrio any notice whatsoever until Donofrio finally got through to Bickell's phone on Nov. 6 when Bickell told Donofrio that since he - not a Supreme Court Justice - had disposed of the case, no disposition notice was necessary at all. To hell with Rule 22.6.
Now that the popular vote has been recorded, Bickell has made a difficult situation ever more dangerous as millions of citizens who voted for Obama (and McCain) stand to have their votes voided post election, a situation my law suit sought desperately to pre-empt.
Now that the case - and the issues discussed therein - have been deemed legitimate by the Court having utilized the extraordinary step (see textbook image below) of distributing for conference a previously denied stay application, Mr. Bickell's motivations should be thoroughly investigated by the Supreme Court and also by a U.S. Attorney. Furthermore, Mr. Bickell should be fired and "we the people" need to see that it happens fast before he has the chance to pull the same cheap bluffs on other pending emergency stay applications headed swiftly to the Supreme Court this week. You can expect a very important update on this issue within the next 24 hours.
Below is a clipped page from the ultimate SCOTUS resource text, SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, page 794: http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:22 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-23 8:31 PM (#3582 - in reply to #3517) By: Philomena
|
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-25 5:52 PM (#3669 - in reply to #3582) By: marchingon
|
| | |
cc, 11/25/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-25 8:45 PM (#3693 - in reply to #3669) By: Savvy
|
| | |
Leo C. Donofrio New Website http://rovingpatrol.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/leo-c-donofrio-new-website/ | |
| Posted 2008-11-27 5:59 AM (#3742 - in reply to #3693) By: marchingon
|
| | |
That just links to: http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/ | |
| Posted 2008-11-27 6:10 AM (#3744 - in reply to #3742) By: Philomena
|
| | |
When I click on it takes me to the Roving Patrol Page? | |
| Posted 2008-11-27 6:13 AM (#3746 - in reply to #3744) By: marchingon
|
| | |
[UPDATE. WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE...
...has been docketed, despite having initially been denied process by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell. Wrotnowski's case has been submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Circuit Justice for the 2nd Circuit (includes Connecticut).
- Wrotnowski and Donofrio will be interviewed by Bob Vernon on the Plains radio Network at 10:30PM EST.
Mr. Donofrio was also on the Scott Hennen show today. Look for an audio file at this blog to be uploaded soon.
| No. 08A469 |
| | Title: | | Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant | | v. | | Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State |
| | Docketed: | | | Lower Ct: | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | Nov 25 2008 | Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. |
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ | | Attorneys for Petitioner: | | | | Cort Wrotnowski | 1057 North Street | (202) 862-8554 | | | Greenwich, CT | | | Party name: Cort Wrotnowski |
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:19 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-27 6:18 AM (#3747 - in reply to #3582) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Plains Radio Network Leo Donofrio interviews are available here:
http://www.plainsradio.com/show.html
In the "Leo Special 11/24/06" [sic, should be /08] interview, direct link
http://www.plainsradio.com/show/leo%20special.mp3 ,
they specifically talk about the Jill Pryor law review article we posted and linked above on November 16, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty".
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:16 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-27 11:55 AM (#3765 - in reply to #3236) By: Philomena
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Thursday November 27, 2008 DONOFRIO AND WROTNOWSKI STAY APPLICATIONS - UPLOADED DOCUMENTS
Here are the .doc files containing the Emergency Stay Applications submitted to the United States Supreme Court:
Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State of Connecticut - docket no. 08A469Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - no. 08A047
please distribute as you like
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:13 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-27 5:25 PM (#3781 - in reply to #3747) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Review, 11/29/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-29 6:56 PM (#3830 - in reply to #3091) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Monday December 1, 2008
Posted by Natural Born Citizen at 9:36 AM Since Google has a never ending spam alert on my blog, I have moved my official blog over to Word Press. Please click the following link for all the latest updates on the United States Supreme Court case Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey.
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:12 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-01 4:51 PM (#3869 - in reply to #3781) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Confirmed by SCOTUS: Donofrio v. Wells Was Distributed for Conference of December 5, 2008 by the Full United States Supreme Court After First Having Been Referred to the Court by Justice Thomas
by Bob Vernon, Honest American News - Plains Radio Network
December 1, 2008 On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was updated to show that the “emergency stay application” to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.” At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court. In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone. Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference. Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm - by direct contact with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office - that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court. On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio’s emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008. Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference. Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled: A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf In that document, on page 3, it advises: “The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.” Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference. Mr. Donofrio was correct. Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas. Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight. See Plainsradio.com for details. Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-01 4:58 PM (#3870 - in reply to #3869) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State Renewed to Justice Scalia
December 1, 2008
By naturalborncitizen Today we are watching for the SCOTUS AUTOMATED Docket to be updated with two important developments, one in Cort’s case and one in mine.
We hope the docket will reflect that Cort Wrotnowski has renewed his application to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of this morning. Cort’s application for an emergency stay and/or injunction was denied by the Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on November 26, 2008. Cort sent it by Express mail on Saturday Nov. 29, 2008.
We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today. This was sent via FED EX on Wed. Nov. 26 and was delivered on Friday Nov. 28 at 9:05 AM, but it still hasn’t been updated to the docket…see Fed ex tracking number 866846734555
I have a call in to a case manager as well as to a supervisor. Hopefully the docket will be updated today.The supplemental brief only has one point, a discussion of Cort Wrotnowski’s case and a full disclosure to the SCOTUS that I helped Cort prepare his application.
Also, I will have another blog later today concerning the most recent update to the Donofrio v. Wells docket which hit the docket Nov. 28, but was backdated to Nov. 19. That entry states that the application was referred to the Court by Justice Thomas. This supplements the “DISTRIBUTED for Conference” entry and sheds some light on the issue. What remains a mystery is why this was updated nine days late.
Check back later for full coverage. Selected Comment
by MoniQue, December 1, 2008 10:09pm:
I sure hope this time that the Cort case can sufficiently convey that per Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz’ own admission she claims innocence for her not checking the election board’s untrue certification of Obama’s birth status requirements AND that the last judge allowed false testimony from what was said by Hawaiian officials at a PRESS CONFERENCE IN NOVEMBER 2008.
Susan Bysiewicz told the judge that Hawaiian officials said Obama was in fact born in Hawaii and that they have the birth certificate to prove it; but that is untrue, they NEVER said that. All they said was they held his “original” birth certificate there ON FILE in Hawaii, and they refused to answer if that “original” birth certificate was a Kenyan certificate of live birth or one from Hawaii.
How this misrepresentation of what was said at a television press conference could be accepted in a court of law as it was at Cort’s first case is INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
CLICK LINK BELOW TO SEE SECRETARY OF STATE & DNC ELECTION BOARD DOCUMENTS [CT & SC] that prove Obama’s birthplace qualifications were never verified, but were approved and signed as such anyway.
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/secretary-of-state-responses-in-regards-to-request-for-obama-records/
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:11 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-01 5:04 PM (#3872 - in reply to #3870) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Leo Donofrio Comments on Judah Benjamin Article Concerning Natural Born Citizen and the Common Law
by naturalborncitizen
December 1, 2008
On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue. While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion - that Obama is not eligible - I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.
Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”. It is “national law” which is controlling. I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.
I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.
And I did enjoy Judah’s article above. He has obviously done much research. But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject”.
There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed. FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.
Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:
“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:
‘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’.”
Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.
See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795
This leads to the second point of error. SECOND MISTAKE: Failure to properly analyze common law.
Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamin’s analysis. Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.
People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized. Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.
Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).
But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”. At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.
The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” which Mr. Benjamin does quote but fails to mention the case citation, which is always important because it provides the reader the chance to see the context of the quote discussed. And this is very important. Here is what Benjamin quoted from Justice Swayne’s eloquent opinion:
“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:
‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “
And this appears to back Mr. Benjamin’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isn’t eligible. The common law is not our national law. Our national law is the Constitution. We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.
And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible. The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote. Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:
“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.
United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)
The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.
If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”. If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.
Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.
But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that. The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”. And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.
But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law. The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.
Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama - although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was. I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law. There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.
The first of which is precedent. In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.
And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:
“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”
You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5. This was made clear by Madison’s article:
“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006
“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part. CONCLUSION
All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic. Please do not assume I am bashing him. I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate. And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.
Leo C. Donofrio
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:10 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-01 5:10 PM (#3873 - in reply to #3872) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Donofrio v. Wells New Official Blog
December 1, 2008
by naturalborncitizen LEO DONOFRIO - NEW BLOG INFO My original blog at http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen was totally wiped out. Now it’s on again off again and it appears slow as usual. So, I’ll leave it up as a museum piece and for back checking the actual court documents. My Google blogspot (blogger.com) blog http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com has also been placed on a spam alert despite many attempts to verify that I am not a bot. Perhaps they will realize I am not a bot soon and change it up.
Regardless, I have now moved my official blog once more. Here I am at Word Press and I hope it’s going to work out.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:06 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-01 5:12 PM (#3874 - in reply to #3873) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Tex Says:
December 2, 2008 at 1:10 am
I just wanted to let people know you can use http://www.pamfax.biz/ with Skype to fax and the first single page fax is free. See mine below.
—– Original Message —–
From: PamFax
To: texo@dixhistory.com
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:04 PM
Subject: PamFax status notification
Hello Tex Dix,
Your PamFax to The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas United States Supreme Court (+12024792971) has been sent successfully.
You may view your fax history from the Portal (Click Portal in PamFax).
Want to save significantly with PamFax, check out our new rates at http://www.pamfax.biz/shop.
Thank you for using our service.
Regards,
PamFax Service
Attachments
----------------
 Thomas.pdf (36KB - 3 downloads)
| |
| Posted 2008-12-01 7:52 PM (#3878 - in reply to #3874) By: Tex
|
| | |
| |
| Posted 2008-12-02 10:37 AM (#3883 - in reply to #3878) By: marchingon
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Tuesday December 2, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen Cort Wrotnowski Hand Delivers Emergency Application
Donofrio Letter Regarding NJ Judge Misconduct Hits Docket
by Natural Born Citizen, December 2, 2008
Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469) a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM. Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM. Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court. In my case, SCOTUS Docket No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, the docket has been updated to include the letter I sent to all nine Justices which included copies of official Judicial Misconduct allegations against the New Jersey Judge who handled my initial NJ Appellate Division case. This is important because the letter made clear that should the SCOTUS request an official copy of the case file from the lower court, the file on record there is fraudulent. It’s significant to note that I sent this letter directly to the nine Justices. While I did send a copy to the Clerk of the Court, the copies I sent to Justices went directly to them without asking the Clerk to distribute them. Since this was not an official pleading, I wasn’t required to go through the Clerk’s office. The letter was sent on November 22, 2008 but has only just hit the Docket today, December 2, 2008. I didn’t think this letter would become part of the Docket. I expect members of the press might be able to find out what this means. Nobody in the Clerk’s office will take my calls.
[UPDATE 2:44pm]
Cort’s docket has been updated at SCOTUS. The application has been “refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia”. [UPDATE 3:12pm]
Cort’s Docket now shows that the renewed application to Justice Scalia is dated Nov. 29. That’s the date Cort express mailed the original papers. We don’t know if they’ve passed the original papers on or if they used the new papers submitted in person today by Cort. If they used the old papers, then why was Cort told yesterday it would take seven days? Perhaps they used the new papers with the original date of filing. We don’t know. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:03 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-02 5:14 PM (#3890 - in reply to #3869) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Review | |
| Posted 2008-12-02 6:46 PM (#3896 - in reply to #3890) By: Savvy
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Wednesday December 3, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen Dr. Orly Taitz Files Natural Born Citizen Suit in California Supreme Court Orly has filed suit on behalf of a group of plaintiffs in the California Supreme Court. One of the plaintiff’s was Ron Paul’s VP running mate in California. She also has a few plaintiffs that were in the military. The California Supreme Court Docket number is S16869. This from Orly’s blog:
Today, December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen, docket number S168690. This is a “Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for Stay”.
Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will either issue an emergency stay of the voting of the electors, or decline to hear the case because it is a federal issue. Either way, Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will make this pronouncement in a timely manner.
WorldNetDaily Letter Campaign Mis-States Core Issue in Donofrio SCOTUS Case
World Net Daily has organized a letter writing campaign to Fed Ex the SCOTUS utilizing the following headline at its web site: “FED EX THE SUPREMES ABOUT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY”
I must draw attention to the fact that the article which solicits these letters has not educated the public to my case. The actual text of the letter they are sending is fine, but the article which solicits participation is incorrect. Here is what it says:
“…there is only one way to make your voice heard in time for Friday’s preliminary hearing – overnight delivery of your letter.
Join more than 145,000 others in signing WND’s online petition calling for release of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office. This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern Time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.”
That language is just awful. No birth certificate can “verify beyond a shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office.” Please. WND is basically saying that if Obama shows an original BC, then his is eligible beyond a shadow of doubt. That is is false.
I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama can release a golden birth certificate signed by 100 gazzillion witnesses embossed in gold leaf that he was born on the mall in Washington DC and it still wouldn’t make him a “Natural Born Citizen” under the Constitution because he was, regardless of where he was born, a BRITISH citizen “at birth.” Since he was “born” as a British citizen/subject, his United States citizenship was not “natural”. World Net Daily has done a prior article where they did get it right, but at this crucial moment, two days before the SCOTUS meets, they are getting it wrong.
The article goes on to say:
“Farah launched a petition drive on WND two weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for full public disclosure of the facts of Obama’s birthplace and parentage…”
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. The WND letter solicitation fails to point that out and as such is doing harm to public awarenesss.
Here’s why: if Obama produces a genuine vault kept birth certificate from Hawaii that satisfies every possible requirement, many people will be under the mistaken impression that he is a natural born citizen. World Net Daily needs to correct that solicitation and let its readers know that Obama is not eligible regardless of where he was born.
I must ask readers of this blog not to participate in that letter writing campaign unless and until World Net Daily corrects the solicitation. I don’t believe this was an intentional error, but I must remain consistent.
Kansas City Star - Just Like MSNBC - Gets the Donofrio SCOTUS Story Wrong, Very Wrong Does the main stream media even know how to research a story any longer? Or are they reporting the story wrong on purpose? The MSNBC fiasco by Pete Williams1 was bad enough when the report made it seem as if Berg’s law suit had been distributed for conference on December 5 along with mine. It wasn’t. Furthermore, people have reported back that their comments to that story which tried to correct the record were not allowed to be posted. I guess the MSNBC policy is to make up stories now. Just make it all up. Is this case exposing major media mavens as propaganda ponies? We report, you decide.
Now comes the Kansas City Star and reporter Rick Montgomery2 with another very misleading account of the case. I phoned Mr. Montgomery this morning and left a relaxed message giving him the benefit of the doubt and offering to speak with him to correct the story should he be so inclined. We will assume for now he was simply lazy and not assertive in his mistaken reporting. There are three blatant mistakes in his piece. MISTAKE 1: the headline is completely misleading on two fronts
“Anti-Obama bloggers challenge birthplace”
If Mr. Montogmery had done the slightest bit of research, he might have found my application now before the SCOTUS. That application firmly argues that John McCain was not eligible to be President along with Roger Calero and Barack Obama. Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run - and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run - with very harsh treatment. McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.
Montgomery’s report fails to point any of this out opting for the more salacious headline. The headline is bunk, but hopefully not intentional bunk. We shall see. MISTAKE 2: My lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court is not focused on challenging Obama’s place of birth. I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, as well as in the actual application submitted to the Court, asserted my belief that Obama was probably born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.
My original lower court suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least, requested to see Obama’s BC. But that is not a core issue in my case. And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue - that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject.
As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen “at birth”. His own web site told me so. And factcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948. Montgomery cites factcheck.org as a “nonpartisan” source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at birth” through his Father.
My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.
Here is what Montgomery said:
“In the outer cosmos of the blogosphere, the presidential election isn’t over.
Barack Obama, now busily forming his administration, isn’t just the wrong person to lead the nation, claim Web sites such as America Must Know and Right Side News.
He is, they contend, constitutionally ineligible to be president.
The argument is over his place of birth — Hawaii…”
Wow. It never mentions the main argument of my law suit. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Nothing about it. MISTAKE 3: Montgomery fails to get the facts of the Distribution for Conference of Dec. 5 right. He fails to mention that the full Court distributed it for conference AFTER considering a refferal from Justice Thomas:
“One litigant’s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.
Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obama’s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.”
All he had to do was call the Public Information Office at the SCOTUS and they would have explained to him what the entries on my Docket mean. As was reported by Bob Vernon of Honest American News and Plains Radio Network two days ago, Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference of December 5, 2008 after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral. There has been multiple docket activity on my case this week. One would think reporters would actually use the resources SCOTUS makes available to them.
No mention of Cort Wrotnowski’s case by Montgomery. That case is now before Justice Scalia.
Montgomery mentions my site in his report, so I don’t know why he didn’t see all of this explained in my blogs below. Hopefully he will fix the record. There’s a place to comment on his report for those so inclined. [UPDATE 10:30am]
FOX NEWS gets it right in very brief clip. It’s short but accurate. Bret Baier mentions Friday’s SCOTUS activity on the case. [UPDATE 11:04am]
Fox News got some of it wrong. The clip below didn’t have the full Baier quote which appears at the FOX NEWS site.
“Meanwhile — the blogosphere is still abuzz over Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The Supreme Court will decide Friday if it will hear a case challenging whether the president-elect is a natural-born citizen. One similar case has already been thrown out.”
No similar case has been thrown out. My case is not similar to any other case except for Cort Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State which has been submitted by renewed application to Justice Scalia. If Beier is referring to Berg’s case, he is twice mistaken. Berg’s case is not similar to mine. Berg never raised the issue that Obama is not eleigible because he was a British citizen at birth. Furthermore, only Berg’s emergency application was denied. His full petition for certiorari is till pending. It probably will be denied, but it hasn’t been thrown out as of yet.
Again, why can’t the main stream media simply call the SCOTUS Public Affairs Office and get their facts straight. [UPDATE 4:48pm]
Rick Montgomery just called me from the Kansas City Star and admitted he wasn’t aware that my law suit was not centered on the birth certificate issue. He was sincere and apologized for the way my case was described in the article. You have to give him credit for that. Apparently he received many calls today from readers of this blog. I should also point out that his story does mention on page 2 that I brought McCain into the law suit. My original blog below missed that, so I apologized to him in kind. He said the headline which made it seem like the issue was directed at just Obama was out of his control. Fair enough and proper respect for the phone call. We may talk again later this week.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Note by Philomena:
1MSNBC only allowed Obama-favorable comments; there are 20 of them.
2The Kansas City Star has not just censored comments; they have deleted/disabled all comments.
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 6:04 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-03 7:15 AM (#3926 - in reply to #3890) By: Philomena
|
| | |
BTTT... | |
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Thursday December 4, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen ABC News Gets the Donofrio SCOTUS Story Wrong
Below is the text of a letter I just sent to ABC News: Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.
The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote,
“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.
And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008. That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.
There are two docket entries for Nov. 19. One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court. The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court. She will set you and your story straight.
The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court. There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference. In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action. There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled
“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”
You may find it here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon. On page 3, it states:
“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“
Now go back and check the docket url for my case.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
Another misleading element of your story is the headline. The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status. Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.
But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President. So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.
If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.
My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case. After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report. We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission. I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.
Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio [UPDATE 7:36 pm]
Terry Owens of ABC News has somewhat corrected his story, but it's still misleading. Here's what it says now:
"The lawsuit was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio who is questioning Obama's citizenship."
It's misleading because I believe Obama is a United States citizen. I am not questioning his "citizenship", I'm questioning "natural born citizenship". The Constitution uses the two terms, "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" exclusively as they mean different things. If Mr. Owns will change the article once more to reflect what I've said above, I'll be happy to remove the blog below and credit his correction.
December 5th Vigil at SCOTUS: Please Don't Bring Signs - Leo Donofrio Will Not Be At Vigil
by naturalborncitizen LEO DONOFRIO WILL NOT BE AT THE VIGIL. PLEASE BRING NO SIGNS.
I do appreciate that people want to support the case, but please understand that nothing is going to influence the Supreme Court Justices.
I know people are planning on bringing signs regarding the misleading main stream media reports, but it’s not a good idea to bring any signs at all. Joe Thunder is also calling for a ban on all signs. Signs signify a protest. Make it a vigil - silent, dignified, all inclusive.
- Please don’t get roped into arguments.
- Please don’t bring megaphones.
- People who do not agree with my law suit should be welcomed and respected.
PLEASE DO EXACTLY AS THE SUPREME COURT POLICE INSTRUCT.
[UPDATE 5:00 PM]
Leo Donofrio is not involved in the planning of this vigil. It just developed by its own momentum. I am not asking anybody to go and I have said it will have zero effect on the outcome. But now that it appears to be happening, I am trying to make people understand there are dangers involved with such an event. My advice [above] is just a guide for anybody planning on going, but I am not encouraging participation. I will be on the radio to dicsuss this - BRIEFLY- with Joe Thunder tonight at 9:00 PM EST, via the Plains Radio Network. [UPDATE: 6:29 PM]
The Supreme Court Police have instructed that no signs be brought to the Supreme Court tomorrow. Amen to that. Once again, I am not encouraging participation. I would be devastated if somebody went there and got into an argument or a fight or arrested.
Jonathan Turley Corrects Blog - Thank You Prof. Turley
by naturalborncitizen
[UPDATE: 12/4/08]
Jonathan Turley has corrected his blog and posted my letter to him. Proper respect to Mr. Turley for taking affirmative action to corrrect the public record.
“Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case. Unfortunately …” SNIP
I’ve snipped my original post. No point leaving the old post up.
President Chester Arthur et al - Why They Aren't Precedent for Obama's Eligibility
by naturalborncitizen
Later tonight, probably much later… I’ll publish my research on all Presidents born to a parent or parents born abroad. I’ve conclusively established that, with the exception of Chester Arthur, every President - that wasn’t made eligible to POTUS under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause - was born on United States soil to parents who were both United States citizens.
As for Chester Arthur’s father William, we haven’t found the exact date he was naturalized, but we’ve found proof that President Chester Arthur lied about his father’s history, his mother’s history and his own age. Why did he do that? Well, it appears that William Arthur probably naturalized within months just before or just after President Chester Arthur was born in October 1829. The 21st President clearly lied about his birthday, pushing it back a year to 1830.
For those of you who may find it hard to sleep tonight, grab a cup of tea and join me for a late night American history lesson and the unfolding of an eerily bizarre coincidental scandal involving Chester Arthur, our 21st President, and also a proven liar. He was born in the United States, but allegations he wasn’t may have provided cover for another eligibility problem.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-04 5:57 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-04 1:16 PM (#3988 - in reply to #3926) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen Later tonight, probably much later… I’ll publish my research on all Presidents born to a parent or parents born abroad. I’ve conclusively established that, with the exception of Chester Arthur, every President - that wasn’t made eligible to POTUS under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause - was born on United States soil to parents who were both United States citizens.
As for Chester Arthur’s father William, we haven’t found the exact date he was naturalized, but we’ve found proof that President Chester Arthur lied about his father’s history, his mother’s history and his own age. Why did he do that? Well, it appears that William Arthur probably naturalized within months just before or just after President Chester Arthur was born in October 1829. The 21st President clearly lied about his birthday, pushing it back a year to 1830. For those of you who may find it hard to sleep tonight, grab a cup of tea and join me for a late night American history lesson and the unfolding of an eerily bizarre coincidental scandal involving Chester Arthur, our 21st President, and also a proven liar. He was born in the United States, but allegations he wasn’t may have provided cover for another eligibility problem. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-04 6:41 PM (#4008 - in reply to #3988) By: marchingon
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Friday December 5, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen
December 5, 2008 - 5:34 am
“President?” Chester Arthur et al - Why They Aren't Precedent for Obama's Elegibility
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen. Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 : No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
Both his parents, James Buchanan and Elizabeth Speer, emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore citizens of the United States. When their son James was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents. ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father: Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.] WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated, “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen. HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen. CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Hoover was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1921. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822. THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date. FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship. CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday: “…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880… )”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now. CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203: “…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie. CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows: “My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie. CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
The Relevant Obama Admission
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission: “FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship ‘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…’ “
Read that last line again. “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…” That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question: HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Docket Confusion - WND Letter Campaign - DEC. 5th Radio Interviews
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen DOCKET CONFUSION
I must admit that past comments of mine regarding the docket entries of Nov. 19, one for the Justice Thomas referral and one for the distribution for conference, might not signify any affirmative action. I cannot get a straight answer from the Supreme Court despite many attempts. Different press sources have also received various explanations as well.
I’ve examined other dockets for applications and I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the docket entries mean. I have requested an explanation from the Clerk numerous times and guidance from the Public Information Office. The PIO did try to help, moreso than the Clerk’s office, but I am more confused than ever.
Muddying the waters is the Reporter’s Guide to Applications Pending Before the United States Supreme Court, specifically page 3.
I am removing from my blog, all references which indicate any knowledge of what the docket entries mean. And let me go on the record to apologize if it turns out that my analysis of the docket was erroneous. I did the best I could with the information I had.
I was told by the stay clerk on Nov. 6 that Justice Thomas would deny a renewed application. But, if what the Reporter’s Guide says is true - that it’s current standard practice for the renewed application to be referred to the full court - then the stay clerk, whose job it is to handle applications, had no business telling me Justice Thomas would deny the renewed application.
And he didn’t deny it. (Donofrio resists temptation to stick out his tongue and say, “Nah na nah na na”… barely.)
The communication and tactics taken by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office have been abysmal. I have absolutely no respect for that office.
Regardless, I take full responsibility for the confusion and must go on record now as saying I have no idea what the docket entries mean, or if they mean anything at all.
I have not been given any information on the disposition of the application at the conference today. SCOTUS did issue a miscellaneous order granting certiorari in two cases today.
The rest of their orders for today should come out on Monday. If I had to read into this, I would say it doesn’t look good, but it’s just a guess. The Public Information Office said they have no information other than what the Court published today. The full order list will be out on Monday.
I wish I could give better guidance, but I can’t. WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN
I also want people to know that I appreciate all the letters sent, but I never supported a form letter. I was adamant about that and I was hoping people would formulate their own thoughts and not sign a kind of petition. People need to think and express themselves form their own personal heart and mind.
As I reported below, the letter didn’t address the issues of my case, and the solicitation for participation in the campaign did unfortunately mix up the birth certificate issue, something I’ve really tried to avoid. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that the only people with standing to certify that info are the various Secretaries of State.
But I do appreciate so much that people laid out money to support the Constitutional issues raised. And I know it was important for folks to be heard before the conference today. I just don’t like the concept of bulk e mails. It’s not like the Justices will read them over and over. Think about it.
I’m not into herding. I’m into individual expression. And I refuse to tell people what to say. I’ve been consistent about that.
The World Net Daily letter campaign had nothing to do with me and I did not endorse it. But I do appreciate the effort everybody made, including WND. It’s just not my style and never will be.
Also, I will not be involved with any press conferences on Monday, Dec 8. If you see my name associated with that anything like that, please know it is not with my permission. If you don’t read about something involving me on this blog, assume my name is being used without my permission. RADIO INTERVIEWS FOR DEC. 5, 2008
At 7:30 PM EST, I will be on The Laurie Roth Show.
At 9:00 PM EST, I will be on The Lion’s Den, Plains Radio Network.
At 1:00 AM EST, I will be on Coast To Coast with George Noory [UPDATE 9:43 PM: Coast to Coast CANCELLED] Their web site hasn’t been updated yet, but I haven’t emailed the release form back yet, so give it an hour or so.
That’s the last radio I’m doing unless certiorari is granted. I have refused all requests for TV interviews and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome. Radio is a much more powerful form of communication. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Edited by Philomena 2008-12-05 6:46 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-12-05 5:26 AM (#4016 - in reply to #3988) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court todayJustices will decide whether to consider the caseBy James Janega | Tribune reporter 6:30 AM CST, December 5, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court will consider today whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story | |
| Posted 2008-12-05 5:57 AM (#4018 - in reply to #4016) By: marchingon
|
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Saturday December 6, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen
December 6, 2008 All Reports Stating I Will Be At the National Press Club on Monday December 8, 2008 Are False I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event. Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide. The event has nothing to do with me. World Net Daily has their story wrong. I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
| |
| Posted 2008-12-06 2:26 PM (#4071 - in reply to #4016) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen December 6, 2008 6:36 PM [I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ] I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843. Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-07 6:22 AM (#4094 - in reply to #4071) By: marchingon
|
| | |
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it. We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year. How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-07 6:33 AM (#4095 - in reply to #4094) By: marchingon
|
| | |
Mr. Donofrio's article is lengthy, it is sure telling. History is trying to repeat itself, we need to demand that Mr Obama provide his information! Did you catch that the media covered even this up also? I thank God that we are living in a time such as this. | |
| Posted 2008-12-07 6:55 AM (#4096 - in reply to #4095) By: marchingon
|
| | |
DONOFRIO NOT INVOLVED WITH NATIONAL PRESS CLUB EVENT ON DEC. 8, 2008 ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE. I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event. Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide. The event has nothing to do with me. World Net Daily has their story wrong. I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/donofrio-not-involved-with-national-press-club-event-on-dec-8-2008/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-08 6:41 AM (#4114 - in reply to #4096) By: marchingon
|
| | |
This thread is now in Page 2. Any way to go to Page 1 from here? | |
| Posted 2008-12-08 9:14 AM (#4121 - in reply to #4114) By: Philomena
|
| | |
LOL... Somebody will look at it. | |
| | |
DONOFRIO'S UPDATE Monday December 8, 2008
by Natural Born Citizen
December 8, 2008 Donofrio Application Denied Wrotnowski Application Still Pending My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why. Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history. After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court. My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent. On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds. I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out. I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth. All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it. I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3. Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history. I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty. [UPDATE 12:23 PM]
The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
| |
| Posted 2008-12-08 1:01 PM (#4132 - in reply to #4071) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that. A fair point.
| |
| | |
PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pmCort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469. The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur. The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue. The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States. It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue. Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5. It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc. It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur. Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. Cort Wrotnowski http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/wrotnowski-application-referred-to-full-court-by-justice-scalia-distributed-for-conference-on-dec-12-supplemental-brief-to-be-submitted-tomorrow/ | |
| Posted 2008-12-08 5:06 PM (#4141 - in reply to #4135) By: marchingon
|
| | |
|
|
|
A Kingdom Of Paradox - DAVID JEFFERS - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS EXEC CHAIRED PRO-ABORTION, LGBT RIGHTS GROUP - Philomena (15 replies)
Russia - 50 Years Behind, but 50 Years Ahead of Where U.S. is Heading - Philomena (0 replies)
'fetal termination': The more syllables a euphemism has, the further divorced from reality it is - SteveSchulin (0 replies)
Scheidler: Jenkins Remains Utterly Immovable on ND 88 - Philomena (3 replies)
LifeSiteNews.com - Monday February 8, 2010 - Philomena (0 replies)
Russian Call For 'Postnatal Abortion' Sparks Furor Among Parents Of Disabled - catstack (2 replies)
Prop. 8 Judge is Reportedly Gay: What to Make of That? - catstack (1 replies)
Evangelical Group Seeks Broader Tent - catstack (1 replies)
Christian speech targeted as 'hate' - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
PA Democrat Congressman John Murtha Dies - FreeByrd (3 replies)
That is why We Urgently Call For... - gcsteven (0 replies)
Reagan and Joe - tarheel_traveler (0 replies)
The Unvarnished Truth - EternalVigilance (2 replies)
Republicans Come to Health Care Table Willing to Negotiate - EternalVigilance (1 replies)
Anti-marriage: marriage penalties embedded in Sen. Health bill - FreeByrd (1 replies)
Snow & Water - A Poem, Hard to Read, Chilling - helenm (0 replies)
Iowa Primary Predicted to Steer Campaigns for 2010 Elections - electshaw2010 (0 replies)
Our Sincerity Called Into Question - DAVID JEFFERS - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Terrorist trials may still be held in Manhattan, says [Alleged] President - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Founders' Quotes - EternalVigilance (126 replies)
Obama Watch at AIPNews.com 2/8/10 - helenm (0 replies)
PRE-GAME ad to air ... O'Reilly throws Focus' LIFE Ad under bus ... TEBOW Abortion Superbowl Ad - SonofAsaph (17 replies)
Maryland - Montgomery County Council targets pro-life pregnancy centers - Little Bit (10 replies)
Hundreds of thousands without power after Eastern snowstorm - Philomena (2 replies)
Bill Johnson on the Les Naiman Show - Louisville KY Grassroots Tea Party meeting announcement - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
February Meeting - Leelanau County MI Caucus - America's Independent Party - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
"If we don't tackle this problem it is going to tackle us...both of our parties share in the blame." - ThanksSaintJoseph (2 replies)
If Only They Would… [Parts I and II] - EternalVigilance (2 replies)
Death Spiral: Obama's Progressive Debt - larrymwalkerjr (3 replies)
Media Black Out--Jeff Kuhner 3 hrs. on Eligibility: Download is Here! - groovsmyth (1 replies)
Obama Faith-Based Advisor: The Pope is "hurting people in the Name of Jesus." - groovsmyth (3 replies)
Breathtaking View from Daytona - groovsmyth (8 replies)
Prayer request ... cancer - Savvy (12 replies)
Middletown, Connecticut rocked by explosion [power plant] - Philomena (2 replies)
What Is This? - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Personhood bill locked up by SC legislators - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Super Bowl terror threat leads to enhanced security - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Iranian weapons program: Exporter arrested, charged with exporting missile parts - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
Pew Research: Mixed Views of Hamas and Hezbollah in Largely Muslim Nations - Savvy (0 replies)
Obama's faith Christianity? And does FOXNews' Kirsten Powers understand faith in Christ? - Savvy (5 replies)
Audio recording available - AIP's February 6, 2010 America's Summit: Restore The Republic call - SteveSchulin (0 replies)
Rush Limbaugh reportedly mentions AIP - catstack (1 replies)
Northeast Texas Freedom Rally - rapndiamond (1 replies)
Candidate forum could become Tea Party, GOP showdown [IA] - EternalVigilance (0 replies)
VIDEO: Real money, not federal reserve lies - by Rolland B. Heiss - nmaureen (0 replies)
Kevin Still for Texas Governor? - Philomena (1 replies)
Snow piles up, paralyzing nation's capital [record 2 1/2 feet or more predicted] - Philomena (7 replies)
America's Summit - Restore the Republic - Every Tues., Thurs., & Sat. - 9 pm Eastern [call info] - EternalVigilance (1 replies)
Colombo has a few questions... - Philomena (1 replies)
Prop. 8 Trial Wraps Up, Leaving Some Christians Wondering if Their Votes Counted - SonofAsaph (1 replies)
Bill Johnson overtakes Rand Paul in the polls - and his base of support is solid as a rock - EternalVigilance (3 replies)
WORLD MORAL LEADERSHIP VACUUM [Lech Walesa] - catstack (3 replies)
Petition for Harry Knox to Resign - nmaureen (0 replies)
New 'bill of particulars' cites Obama failings [WND] - FreeByrd (0 replies)
Government Intervention and High Prices - tarheel_traveler (0 replies)
Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf - Philomena (0 replies)
On the development of a spine - groovsmyth (1 replies)
Ol' McDonald had a stimulus.... - FreeByrd (10 replies)
A Moment of Illumination - Philomena (1 replies)
Happy Birthday ... President Ronald Reagan (Feb. 6, 1911 to June 5, 2004) - Savvy (15 replies)
Obama Watch at AIPNews.com 2/6/10 - helenm (0 replies)
James Walsh, Grafton, MA Selectman candidate has a new site - nmaureen (0 replies)
Tea Party implications for northwest Iowa House GOP forum - electshaw2010 (0 replies)
McCain Files Bill To Repeal Key Sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act - Philomena (0 replies)
Maryland PR firm sez as long as it's a person, it'll run for Congress - EternalVigilance (2 replies)
Would you die for your faith? - Philomena (9 replies)
|
| |
|
