Fact: All the filers of "Obama Birth Certificate" law suits are crazier than a

[cali]

shithouse rat. the psychopathology behind this nonsense is the only interesting thing about it, and even that's not very interesting.

Fact: The Berg, Donofrio and Martin cases have been dismissed in PA, NJ and HI.

The Donofrio case scheduled for SCOTUS conference on December 5 is nuttier than grandma's fruitcake. It will not be granted certiorari.

Alan Keyes may have standing but his case in CA will be dismissed like all the others.

The people filing these cases are absolutely insane and those believing any of the crap about Obama not being qualified to run because of his birth, or his early dual citizenship, are just as crazy.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I find the request for an 'original birth certificate' hilarious.

I don't have any 'originals' of any of my kids because to enter then in school, etc. I had to produce an 'original'. Therefore I have problem 2-3 for each child, but not one is an 'original'.

They're insane. Racist, bigoted insane assholes.

[cali]

2. The Donofrio case scheduled for conference is even funnier

it claims that Obama isn't a natural born citizen because his father was Kenyan.

From Donofrio's wacko blog:

"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.

__________________________________________________________

Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

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.

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.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".


The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".


Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.


As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."




The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth". If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.


If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"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:


British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "




The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.


The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.







US Supreme Court case > NJ CITIZEN TO RENEW APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF '08 NATIONAL ELECTION ON MON. NOV. 17 - LETTER
Posted: Nov.14.2008 @ 1:20 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.17.2008 @ 10:23 pm
LEO C. DONOFRIO WILL RENEW HIS APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY STAY OF THE 2008 NATIONAL ELECTION ON MONDAY, NOV. 17 BY WAY OF SUPREME COURT RULE 22.4 - LETTER TO WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK OF THE US SUPREME COURT.




On Monday Nov. 17, 2008, the following letter and ten copies of my original "Application for Emergency Stay" will be submitted to William K. Suter, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court in support of my renewed application for an emergency stay of the 2008 national election as per United States Supreme Court Rule 22.4:

4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter... the party making an application... may renew it to any other Justice... Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29. (Emphasis added.)

Out of respect for the United States Supreme Court, I have decided not to hold a press conference there on Monday, Nov. 17. Instead, I will be doing radio and press interviews. I will update this blog as those interviews become confirmed.


LETTER TO WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT:




No. 08A407


In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Leo C. Donofrio,

v.

Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey



ATTN:
WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Office of the Clerk
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

Re: United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

FROM:

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., Pro Se
PO Box 93
East Brunswick
New Jersey, 08816

November 14th, 2008



LETTER TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CLERK, WILLIAM K. SUTER, AS MANDATED BY SUPREME COURT RULE 22.4, REGARDING RENEWED APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY, SUCH RENEWED APPLICATION WILL NOW BE ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AS PER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULE 22.4


Dear Mr. Suter, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court,

According to Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I now renew this emergency application for a stay to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of letter addressed to the "Clerk" - as per Rule 22.4. Since this stay application pertains to a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying similar relief below, this stay application was originally submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter, Circuit Justice for the 3rd Circuit, on November 3, 2008, and was denied by Justice Souter on November 6, 2008. (See attached, 1)

Due to the very unorthodox treatment bestowed upon this case by stay clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, it is of the utmost importance that I recapitulate the extraordinary communications and actions taken by Mr. Bickell, who has so egregiously handled this matter by having taken it upon himself to make improper and incorrect substantive judgments of law thereby usurping the authority of the Supreme Court and its honorable Justices. This letter will now address the specific errors Mr. Bickell has made as such errors have caused certain damage to my case and cause. I respectfully request that the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas be given a copy of this letter along with the renewed emergency application for a stay.

First, I would point out that the computerized Docket for this case has been the subject of no less than three separate entries (See attached, 2-4) despite the fact that, up until this resubmission letter, no other papers have been filed other than the original application for emergency stay. The first Docket entry incorrectly listed the stay application as an "application for injunction", despite the fact that the original application states clearly on the cover page, "APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY".

Mr. Bickell refused to recognize the nature of this pleading as a "stay" and therefore he did not follow the Rules which govern stay procedure. Specifically, Mr. Bickell was required, under Rule 22.1 to "transmit it promptly" to Justice Souter, which Mr. Bickell promised to do in a 7 minute phone conversation I had with him on Nov. 3 at 3:50 PM just after I filed the original application. Not only did Mr. Bickell fail to transmit the Application promptly, despite its bold face cover declaring it was an emergency stay application, Mr. Bickell failed to transmit it at all thereby disposing of it on his own volition by denying the application as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice.

During a conversation with Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6, he first informed me that he had chosen not to pass on my stay application to Justice Souter because he had made a substantive judgment of law that my stay application was improper in that it was his opinion I had not requested a stay in the lower courts, and therefore, according to Mr. Bickell, Supreme Court Rule 23.3 prevented me from requesting a stay in the US Supreme Court. Mr. Bickell is both factually and legally wrong.

Mr. Bickell was factually wrong because I specifically did request a stay as to the 2008 election in my initial Complaint (See attached, 5) filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey - Appellate Division, where my request for emergency relief was denied on October 30, 2008, after a four day emergency litigation which generated a complex seventy-five page appendix to a subsequent motion requesting the same relief in the NJ Supreme Court filed by me on October 31, exactly one day after the Appellate Division denied such emergency relief.

Mr. Bickell did not have the original Complaint in his possession for review, nor did he have the appendix, so I don't know how he could have ever come to the conclusion that I had not asked for a stay below. Furthermore, defendant-respondent - Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was represented by the New Jersey Attorney General. Their reply brief to my initial Complaint specifically argues against a stay being granted on page 2 of the brief (See attached, 6):



"...ecause the relief requested would upset the orderly conduct of the upcoming general election, the application for a stay should be denied."


Furthermore, Mr. Bickell's naive misunderstanding of Rule 23.3 clearly exhibits why a clerk such as he should not be attempting to play Supreme Court Justice. Rule 23.3 does not bar the entertaining of a stay application, regardless of whether a stay was requested in the lower courts, when the stay request is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court under "extraordinary circumstances" as was the case in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987). In that case, a stay was granted by Justice O'Connor even though no stay had been requested in the lower courts. Surely, a stay of the national election qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances".

Regardless, this was a genuine issue of substantive law - to be decided by a US Supreme Court Justice - and not by a subordinate clerk seeking to substitute his judgment for that of the US Supreme Court Justices, all of whom were appointed by Presidents and approved by the Senate. Accordingly, the lower court pleadings and orders of denial in this case pertain directly to a "stay" as the relief requested was of exactly the same nature in the Appellate Division, the NJ Supreme Court and in the Emergency Stay Application now before the US Supreme Court.

The order denying my request for Emergency relief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, handed down on Friday October 31, 2008, by the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long (See attached, 7) stated:



"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."


N.J. COURT RULE 2:9-8 states:

"2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters



When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court..."


Justice Long made it clear that this order was directly related to the Appellate Division case wherein I specifically requested a stay pertaining to the 2008 election. The case, In re Moser, 69 F.3d 690 (3rd Cir. 1995), testifies to the argument I made to Mr. Bickell that a stay is injunctive in nature. US Supreme Court jurisdiction was also appropriate as an exercise of mandamus authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). This was reiterated in Berry v. Francis, 1998 FED App. 0158P (6th Cir.)

Moreover, Supreme Court Rule 22.6 demands that:



"The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application." (Emphasis added.)


In a phone conversation I had with Mr. Bickell, he advised me that since he had disposed of my case on his own volition, such "disposition" was not the same kind of "disposition" recognized by Rule 22.6, and as such, it was his opinion that he had no duty to inform me - by appropriately speedy means - or any means whatsoever, of the actual disposition of my Application. Essentially, Mr. Bickell illegally substituted his legal judgment for that of a US Supreme Court Justice as well as for the judgment of the actual Rules of Court.

On Nov. 6, after much arguing with Mr. Bickell, he eventually agreed to Docket my case, but only after trying to convince me to let it go. He stated, "Justice Souter will deny it...Justice Thomas will also deny it." Does Mr. Bickell have the authority to announce possible decisions of Supreme Court Justices? No, he does not.

The next morning, Nov. 7, I checked the US Supreme Court Docket and was shocked to see that Mr. Bickell had, despite our conversation, incorrectly Docketed the case as an "Application for injunction" filed on November 6. (See attached, 2.) The date was obviously wrong as the case was filed and stamped at the security gate at the US Supreme Court on November 3 , not Nov. 6. Furthermore, this fraudulent Docket was entered in the system by Mr. Bickell even though, by this time, I'd had multiple conversations with him about this case starting on Nov. 3 just minutes after it had been filed. And the stay application clearly states on the cover page that it is a "stay" application not an application for injunction.

I left three messages on Mr. Bickell's voice mail on the morning of Nov. 7 demanding that he correct the Docket for this case and and threatening to bring legal action against him specifically for willfull misconduct. Later that morning, I checked the automated Docket again and found that the Docket entry had been altered to reflect that the case was then filed as a Stay application submitted to Justice Souter on Nov. 3. (See attached, 3) But the Docket entry was also now reflecting that Justice Souter had denied the Stay application on Nov. 6. I don't see how, earlier on the morning of Nov. 7, the Docket could reflect that the application was for a pending injunction application submitted to Justice Souter - no disposition listed - then suddenly, a few hours later, the Docket retroactively shows a disposition of the stay application having been denied on Nov. 6. I cannot understand how that was possible and I am officially requesting an explanation.

On Nov. 12, I noticed that Mr. Bickell had failed to include the NJ Supreme Court's review of this matter in the "Lower Ct:" section of the US Supreme Court Docket for this case. I phoned Mr. Bickell, and again, he tried to make specious substantive legal arguments thereto. Eventually, one day later, Mr. Bickell was forced to correct the Docket, once again, to reflect that this case had been through both the NJ Appellate Division and the NJ Supreme Court. (See attached, 4.) This was a very important correction because having orders from both of the lower Courts proves that the US Supreme Court is the final jurisdiction available to me for emergency relief.

Furthermore, I've repetitively tried to explain to Mr. Bickell that my stay application relies on the procedural history of Bush v. Gore wherein the emergency application for a stay in that case was treated by the Supreme Court as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari. Bush V. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98:



"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.)



I now renew the emergency application for a stay to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as per Rule 22.4.

Very Truly Yours,


Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se







US Supreme Court case > US SUPREME COURT CLERK DANNY BICKELL CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN CHALLENGE TO 08 ELECTION
Posted: Nov.13.2008 @ 9:04 am | Lasted edited: Nov.17.2008 @ 10:23 pm
UPDATE: 1:31 PM

Now that the Docket reflects that my case has followed proper procedure through all possible lower court jurisdictions, I will resubmit the application for an emergency stay of the national election to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Supreme Court Rule 22(4) (operating in tandem with Rule 23) gives me the right, by law, to resubmit the Application for Emergency Stay to "any other Justice" once the original stay application has been denied. According to the Docket, and a letter I received from Mr. Danny Bickell, Justice Souter denied the stay application on November 6th.

So, according to the Rules, I may now resubmit the application to "any other justice."

However, there is still one issue which must be dealt with before I resubmit the stay application. Rule 22 (4) requires that I write a letter to the Clerk indicating which Justice I am renewing the stay application to. This letter is supposed to go to William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court, but the "stay clerk" is Mr. Danny Bickell and I'm certain that the renewed stay application will go directly through him.

Once the "Clerk" receives it, Rule 22(1) prescribes the following duty to the Clerk in relation thereto:
Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices

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.)

This means that the original stay application should have been submitted to Justice Souter on Mon. Nov 3rd, the day I filed it, the day it was stamped. But it wasn't "transmitted promptly", it was disposed of promptly by Mr. Bickell, and it was disposed of wrongly. Eventually it was actually transmitted to Justice Souter, but only after I read Mr. Bickell the riot act.

Ponder this; if Mr. Bickell had been intially correct in disposing of the stay application on Monday Nov. 3rd, then why did he eventually Docket it and submit it to Justice Souter on Nov. 6th? The answer is obvious. He was wrong to have disposed of it, and he was wrong to have failed to notify me of such disposition and he's been wrongly trying to dispose of it in one way or another ever since.


I anticipate that Mr. Bickell will be handed my renewed "application for an emergency stay" by interns in the Clerk's office, even though, technically, according to Rule 22(1) the letter accompanying the application must be addressed to the "Clerk". The Clerk is "William K Suter".

Please send Mr. Suter letters indicating that you, as an American citizen, are outraged at the disrespect and sabotage this case, Donofrio v. Wells, US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407, has been subjected to. Mr. Suter's address is:


William K. Suter, Clerk

United States Supreme Court

Office of the Clerk

Washington, D.C. 20543-0001



When you write your letters to; Justice Thomas, the other Supreme Court Justices, and Clerk Suter, it would be good to include a paragraph explaining that the case reflects a matter of vital public importance, depends on a genuine Constitutional issue of first impression, is coming directly from the NJ Supreme Court and is relying on the "stay application" precedent issued by the most Honorable Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):

"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."

Unfortunately, Mr. Bickell failed to recognize the precedent set in that case when he initially refused to pass on my "stay application" to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd. When I spoke to Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6th, he told me my stay application should have come with a "Full Petition for Writ of Certiorari". It was this decision which delayed Justice. This was a decision of substantive law made by a clerk who subverted the authority of the US Supreme Court. And his decision, despite being an act of direct insubordination, was also legally flawed.

As was done in Bush v. Gore, also a Presidential election case involving an emergency, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recognizing the exigency of the circumstances, decided to relax its formal requirements and instead, the Honorable Court, in granting the Stay, decided to accept the less formal Stay Application as if it were a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and then they granted Certiorari.

This was the precedent I was proceeding under. Had Mr. Bickell followed the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Souter would have received my emergency Stay Application on Monday Nov. 3rd, shortly after 4:30PM. But Mr. Bickell didn't Docket the case until Nov. 6th, and only after I protested vehemently. While arguing with me, Mr. Bickell told me that it didn't matter what I did or what law I cited, "Justice Souter will just deny it...and Justice Thomas will also deny it."

How dare he speak for our Supreme Court. The audacity is disgusting.


According to the Docket and Mr. Bickell's letter, Justice Souter apparently denied the Stay Application on that same day.

Had Justice Souter denied it on Nov. 3rd instead, and had Mr. Bickell then followed Rule 22(6), which says that I was to be informed of the "disposition" of the case "by appropriately speedy means", i.e., a phone call, then I could have resubmitted the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas at 9:00 AM on Nov. 4th, Election Day, and since the case was bi-partisan, and at that time there was no winner, Justice Clarence Thomas could have granted the stay, stopped the Election, brought in the whole Court, and decided the "natural born citizen" issue before the voting was done.

I did everything in my power to see that this was the case, and Mr. Bickell did everything in his power to see that this wasn't the case.

And that's why your letters are still needed. Mr. Bickell needs to understand that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court will be aware that this case is on its way to them and that if anybody is going to deny the stay application - "We the People" - demand that it be a genuine US Supreme Court Justice and not a clerk impersonating a Justice.


Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio








UPDATE: 11:43 AM


Mr. Danny Bickell, stay clerk of the US Supreme Court, has finally corrected the Docket for US Supreme Court Case No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, to reflect that this case has come to the US Supreme Court directly from a final order denying emergency relief by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Having this case properly docketed is a major procedural necessity to the case having proper standing to be decided in the US Supreme Court.

Thanks to all who made a stand to see that this Docket was corrected.

Warm Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio








US SUPREME COURT STAY CLERK DANNY BICKELL CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN LAW SUIT CHALLENGING 08 ELECTION

As of 9:53 AM, November 13, 2008, the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 has still not been updated to reflect the fact that the case...


Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey

... now before the US Supreme Court comes directly from a final decision as to the emergency matter issued by the highest court in New Jersey which is the Supreme Court Of New Jersey. Mr. Bickell has consistently attempted to stop this case from being docketed properly. And in doing so Mr. Bickell has subverted and defiled the esteemed Rules of the US Supreme Court, particularly Rules 22 and 23.

Mr. Bickell knows that, for my case to have proper standing before the US Supreme Court, I am required to exhaust all of my lower court options, which I have done. My case was originally brought in the NJ Appelllate Division where it was delayed, subjected to misconduct and eventually denied on October 30. Then on October 31, I brought the same action to the NJ Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also denied my application for Emergency relief, but in doing so, the NJ Supreme Court, by the hand of the Honorable Justice Virginia A Long, relied on "movant's papers" which contained a Constitutional issue of first impression as to the "natural born citizen" clause of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (See below.)

Regardless, after numerous attempts to reason with Mr. Bickell, he still refuses to update the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 to include any reference to the NJ Supreme Court decision. Instead, Mr. Bickell lists only the Appellate Division reference which is an incomplete record of the procedure of this case.

And in so doing, Mr. Bickell is very aware that any Justice of the Supreme Court who may take an interest in this case might come to an erroneous conclusion that the case is prematurely before the US Supreme Court. This is one of the many dangers inherent in Mr. Bickell's sabotage of this case.


Mr. Bickell, through his illegal actions, has now taken control of the Docket at the United States Supreme Court and in so doing, Mr. Bickell is operating such Docket under his own brand of martial law. Mr. Bickell's actions are no less than a declaration of war upon the Rules of Supreme Court practice.

I am calling for Mr. Bickell to be fired from his position and for him to be arrested by the Justice Department for criminal abuse of power and dereliction of duty. Mr. Bickell needs to be put under oath and questioned in a court of law as to the motivations behind his drastic attempt at overthrowing our legal system of justice and to see if there are other conspirators involved with him in this attack on our highest court's authority.


If this lowly clerk can single-handedly deny justice according to his own whim and deceit, than the highest court in our land is effectively subverted to the cause of injustice. And such a house divided cannot stand. What you are seeing today, via Mr. Bickell's blatant deceit and judicial treachery, is a direct attempt to change the fabric and ability of justice as we have always known it. This rebellion from the Supreme Court Rules of Court, if allowed to stand, will signal the beginning of the end of our Constitutional form of Government.

If, after having reviewed the documents and legal arguments at this site, you believe, as I do, that Mr. Bickell should be thrown out of his office at the US Supreme Court, then please call the US Supreme Court and speak your mind.

US Supreme Court Clerk's office: 202-479-3011

Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell: 202-479-3024

Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1










US Supreme Court case > SCOTUS CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUED SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP
Posted: Nov.12.2008 @ 11:46 am | Lasted edited: Nov.20.2008 @ 11:26 am
UPDATED 7:28 PM: True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief. Mr. Bickell informed me that he has kept all reference to the NJ Supreme Court order off the Docket for the same reason he initially did not feed the Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter back on Nov. 3rd, a semantical falsehood concocted by Mr. Bickell and/or his superiors.

My "Motion For Emergency Injunctive Relief" before the NJ Supreme Court was brought under Rule 2:9-8, which states:

2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters

"When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court..."
A stay is a form of injunctive relief which by its nature pertains to emergent matters. When I appealed to the US Supreme Court, I did so by making an "Application for Emergency Stay". Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief. And the Rule cited by NJ Supreme Court Justice Virginia A. Long in her final denial order specifically refers to "stays and emergency orders":

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.)


If Bickell doesn't show on the Docket that the case came from the NJ Supreme Court, it will appear, on the Docket, that I did not exhaust all of my lower court options while I most certainly did. I had to go through a preliminary interview with a NJ Supreme Court staff attorney who recognized the emergency as the election was pending. The staff attorney requested 9 copies of my motion, and 9 copies of my 75 page appendix which cost me $172 to make.

I submitted all of that on Friday October, 31 at 12:27 PM. I have the time-stamp on my Motion. An hour later, I spoke with the staff attorney and was told that multiple Justices were going over the case together. Finally, the NJ Supreme Court denied my request for Emergency Relief, but in so doing, they opened the door to expedited review of the United States Supreme Court when Justice Long, in her order, made specific reference to the NJ Supreme Court having "relied" on "movant's papers" while such papers raised the Constitutional "natural born citizen" issue of first impression.

I did this by the book, the Supreme Court Rule book, but now Mr. Bickell and his keepers are trying to rewrite that book for their own purposes.


Mr. Bickell's motives are now so important that he must be put under oath and questioned about his bizarre, unorthodox, and most likely criminal attempts to keep my case out of the eyes and minds of certain Justices of the US Supreme Court. Indeed, if Mr. Bickell's nefarious clerical sabotage has been concocted to influence the occupancy of The White House than Mr. Bickell may eventually be charged with a felony, if not Treason.

I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law.

It is time to make a stand for the law. For what is now being done to the law in the holiest legal stronghold this world had ever seen, The United States Supreme Court, is nothing short of a blatant attempt to strangle the last breath from our dying Constitutional system of Government created by the people and for the people. There is a force operating here with the intention of squeezing "we the people" out of the way. And that force is dead set against a single citizen setting a virtuous example for the entire nation to witness. Such audacity will apparently not be tolerated.


USA, your law is under attack tonight. Your entire system of Government is under attack with this case. My case is on sold legal ground and it belongs before the US Supreme Court based upon established State law precedent. No exception to standing need be crafted and there are no other procedural hang ups now standing in its way.

I have followed the law to get this case before the highest court in the land and the only thing stopping full review now is interference from a lowly clerk who is sticking it right in your face America. He's basically telling all who are watching this sick play unfold that he holds the keys to the building and he will decide your rights, or lack thereof under the Document.

Time to make a stand, people. And it's a fairly easy one to make. All we need to do is make enough noise so that Justice Thomas and the rest of the court knows that I am coming to the US Supreme Court with my proper papers.

Please don't ask me for instructions on how you do this. I cannot give such advice. All I can do is make my case public, show the documents, quote the law and keep you informed. Any noise you make must be of your own volition and of your own free will.


THERE IS NO NEED TO BREAK ANY LAW. PEACEFUL MEANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE LAW CAN BE UPHELD. BE HEARD BUT DONT GET IN TROUBLE. DONT BREAK THE LAW. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CAN'T KNOW WHO IS UNDER PRESSURE AND WHO IS APPLYING PRESSURE SO BE COOL BUT BE FIRM. TELL THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.

Warm Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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/



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED


Dear Citizens of the United States of America,

I need your help and the US needs your help.


My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.


For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case.


It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.


The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.


I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court. The Appellate Division case avoided the Constitutional issue, but the NJ Supreme Court decision raised the Constitutional issue when it specifically said in its order of denial that it had relied on "movant's papers" while at the same time it made no mention of Judge Sabatino's Appellate Division order and opinion.

The NJ Supreme Court specifically relied upon "movant's papers" in their order denying emergency relief and "movants papers" focused on the "natural born citizen" issue.


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."
The US Supreme Court Docket fails to mention the NJ Supreme Court decision and that is completely wrong and improper. This case continues to be subjected to Judicial/Clerical misconduct and it's time that US Citizens, be they Democrat, Republican or 3rd party affiliated, stand up and order that the Clerk's office of the highest Court in the land STOP interfering in a case that is rightly before the US Supreme Court.

This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.


Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
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/

If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to

THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES


Thank you,

Leo C. Donofrio




US Supreme Court case > NJ CITIZEN CHALLENGING OBAMA AND McCAIN ELIGIBILITY CITES LAW IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS BEFORE UNITE
Posted: Nov.12.2008 @ 9:44 am | Lasted edited: Nov.17.2008 @ 10:23 pm
NJ CITIZEN CHALLENGING OBAMA AND McCAIN ELIGIBILITY CITES LAW IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS BEFORE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT


I anticipate that the erroneous legal conclusions stated today by blogger Jeff Schrieber of the Americasright blog may be echoed further and so I will use the following argument to counter Mr. Schreiber's false contentions and to pre-empt any future false assertions.

Today, Mr.Schreiber posted a story concerning legal issues in my pending US Supreme Court case seeking to challenge the 2008 Presidential national election. Mr. Schreiber failed to even link to this blog. I have quoted selected erroneous statements made by Mr. Schreiber with my comments following below:

"First, Donofrio provides no support whatsoever to his interpretation that the word “natural,” in the context of Article II, Section 1, means as he maintains it does, “unencumbered by the laws of any other nation.”

The evidence is contained directly in the 14th Amendment, where it clearly states that people born in the US are "citizens", as long as they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". The 14th Amendment does not grant "natural born citizen" status.

Mr. Schreiber may not agree with my evidence/arguments, but he has no right to say I provided "No support whatsoever." I've cited legislative history as well as the direct wording of the Constitution itself. The most important piece of evidence I provide is that the 14th Amendment only confers "citizen" status as that is the word used by the Amendment itself. It is Mr. Schreiber who adds an implication to the actual wording of our Constitution's 14 Amendment, I do not.

The wording is clear in that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship. Nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer "natural born citizen" status. The words simply do not appear, but Mr. Schreiber would have us believe they are implied. My argument needs no such implication for it does not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not put there by those who wrote the 14th Amendment which does NOT grant "natural born citizen" status.

More from Mr. Schreiber,


" While he may very well be right in arguing that Barack Obama is America’s first president born with dual citizenship, according to Lawrence Solum’s 2008 commentary, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause (reviewed here at America’s Right in early October), there is currently no clear understanding of our founders’ original intent with regard to the Natural Born Citizen clause."

Then this issue is certainly ripe for the SCOTUS to make such a determination and that is all I have ever tried to accomplish with this case. As a citizen, I sought to bring this case before the Supreme Court so that there might be closure on this issue of first impression. Since the country has been so divided on this issue, the highest court in the land needs to settle this once and for all. Of course, I have a strong opinion, supported by law, facts and arguments, but ultimately the issue needs to be decided by the US Supreme Court. It's up to them to make the tough calls. The issue couldn't be more ripe for review.


More from Mr. Schreiber:


"Now, there may be a clean slate in terms of interpretation, of course, but it would nonetheless behoove Donofrio to provide even a smattering of support as it does run to the heart of his claim that the Secretary of State failed to honor her obligations with regard to balloting."

And here Mr. Schreiber, albeit a struggling law student and not a professional lawyer, fails to grasp the context of my suit. My law suit was originally brought in order to force the Secretary of State to exercise her statutory and Constitutional duty to investigate which candidates are eligible to be President. There is no dispute as to the issue of whether she did anything to "certify" which candidates are "by law entitled" (NJSA 19:13-22) to appear on the ballots, nor is there any evidence that she took any act to uphold her oath of office to support and protect the US Constitution. She did nothing and it has been admitted by one of her key subordinates. Indeed, that she did nothing was not even disputed by her counsel, the NJ Attorney General's Office, nor was this fact disputed by Judge Sabatino in his five page Appellate Division opinion.

My law suit was brought in the nature of a traditional "writ of mandamus" (aka "action in lieu of prerogative writs") in order to force the Secretary of State to do "something" to protect the integrity of the ballots as per her oath of office and as is required by NJSA 19:13-22, a statute specifically addressed to the Secretary of State with regards to ballot integrity.

The fact that Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua, had his name listed on New Jersey ballots is proof positive that Secretary Wells did nothing to protect New Jersey voters from fraudulent and frivolous candidates and she was therefore guilty of misfeasance since other Secretaries of State did have Mr. Calero's name removed from their ballots in their states.

The NJ Secretary of State also admits she did nothing to determine whether McCain and Obama were eligible. I asked the lower courts to take Judicial Notice of the many cases being run through US federal and state courts in a frenzy of confusion as to the issues surrounding candidate eligibility. I wasn't asking for the court to determine the facts of those cases or the merits, I simply was using the existence of such cases to show that a genuine controversy was raging in America as evidence that the "natural born citizen" issue needed to be addressed by the Secretary of State as it is her job to police the integrity of New Jersey elections and if there was no clear determination as to who is eligible under Article 2, Section 1, then there was no possible way she could certify that these candidates were, in fact, "by law entitled" to have their names of New Jersey ballots.

By way of evidence, which Mr. Schreiber chose to ignore, I made reference to and quoted the current US Foreign Affairs Manual which states:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency



a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President,"

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born".

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes. (Emphasis added.)

This tells you straight up, directly from a Government publication, that the issue has never been definitively determined. And I point out here, as I did in my SCOTUS stay application, that the Foreign Affairs Manual fails to mention that Congress specifically repealed the "natural born" part of the 1790 Naturalization act in the Naturalization Act of 1795 leaving only the word "citizen" and repealing the words "natural born".

Secretary Wells had a job to do and she didn't do it. Not having done that job, and there being no issue of genuine fact to dispute, I asked for a stay of the NJ ballots to be put in place for the length of time it would take the Secretary to do her job and make a proper determination as to the eligibility of the candidates. That was her job to do, not mine. I raised the Constitutional issues because these issues were potential road blocks to either of the major candidates being sworn in post-election. And there are, in fact, going to be post election challenges.

I sought to make the Secretary do her job as the chief election official in NJ charged with securing the integrity of New Jersey's electoral process. It's not my job to do her job, but rather it's my job as a citizen to use the law to command her to do her job, and that is exactly what the eloquent process of writ of mandamus was intended to do; to protect the public from Government officials who failed to do their job and fulfill their prescribed duties.

More from Mr. Schreiber:




"Secondly, United States law clearly provides now—as it did in August of 1961—that an individual born in the United States is both a 'natural born citizen' and 'subject to U.S. jurisdiction.' "


And where exactly does it say that such a person is a "natural born citizen" in the 14th Amendment? It doesn't say that anywhere, and that's the main point of my case. Had the US Legislature and the States that ratified the 14th Amendment sought to grant the status of "natural born citizen" by virtue of simply having been born on US soil, than that's what the 14th Amendment would say, but it does not say that. Such an allegation is pure fiction.

Mr. Schreiber continues:


"If that child was born in the United States, the nationality of that child’s parents has no impact whatsoever on his status as a natural born citizen of the United States of America, dual citizenship be damned; this, of course, is at the heart of the debate over “anchor babies” and illegal immigration."


This is completely false. The "anchor babies" issue deals with whether those children are "citizens", not whether they are "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. They are not eligible since, at birth, they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the countries their parents were citizens of.

Mr Schreiber continues:



"Nevertheless, Donofrio suggests that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s birth certificate says because his father was a Kenyan national, but in fact it does. If Obama was born in Honolulu as he maintains (I’d still like to see a long-form birth certificate, of course), he is a natural born citizen."


Wrong. The 14th Amendment does not use the words "natural born citizen", it uses the word "citizen". The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in the 14th Amendment, but the only place the Constitution discusses "natural born citizen" is in Article 2, Section 1, and ONLY as to that being an absolute qualifier for those seeking to hold the highest office in the land, President of the United States. It makes sense that the framers would have required those seeking this office to have a totally pure and natural tie to this country unencumbered by dual nationalities at birth.

But despite whether Mr. Schreiber does or does not believe my evidence and legal arguments, it is specious for him to imply that I have provided no evidence to make my case. I have provided many citations and various legislative history to make my case, and Mr. Schreiber has included none of it in his blog, but has, instead, chosen to hide the fact that such arguments and legal support have been provided by me to the various courts this case has been run through. Any cursory review of the documents provided at this blog will prove Mr. Schreiber has grossly understated my case. And in conclusion, I will point out once more that Mr. Schreiber didn't even provide a link to this blog.


Leo C. Donofrio


1 2 | > >>
Entries 1 to 10 of 14




| Report Member | Free Blog BlogText.org

[jberryhill]

3. Last one finished at Free Republic... please turn the lights out when you leave...

Well done.

[rateyes]

4. Yes, they are, and if by some bizarre notion the SCOTUS should

rule otherwise, there would be civil war in this country. There are a few crazies on SCOTUS (Thomas being one of them for even thinking about granting this a hearing), but crazy doesn't equal stupid.

[cali]

5. thomas, I believe, is definitely the craziest

but bringing this to conference doesn't neccessarily indicate that he's thinking about granting a hearing.

I'm 99.999% convinced that cert will not be granted. Donofrio's pleadings are beyond bizarre. The court would be a laughing stock if they granted cert to Donofrio based on his loony writings.

[fasttense]

6. All the law suits ignore the glaring fact that Obama was born on American soil

and Obama's Mother was an American citizen.

They can go on and on about his father but the truth is he is a natural born citizen cause he was born here and his Mom was a citizen.

Bunch of idiots filing lawsuits. If Obama ain't a natural born citizen then neither is McCain who was born in Panama.

[ellie]

7. Agreed

What the hell is this about "split loyalties"? It is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.