Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
March 19, 2009
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing to make you aware of a brewing danger to members of our active military who have been influenced to join law suits challenging the eligibility of President Barack Obama as Commander In Chief. I hope you will deem it proper to take appropriate action to protect our military and the nation from further damage.
Recently, 1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling, currently serving in Iraq, agreed to be a plaintiff in a pending law suit being brought on behalf of several active and retired military persons by California attorney, Orly Taitz. Easterling agreed to sign a consent form for participation in this action. Beside asking for a publicity photograph and donations, the consent form requests a signature below the following language:
Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT whether Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia and possibly still citizen of Kenya, aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S or TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall) and I could conceivably be given unlawful orders by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, and by following such orders I can be subject to court martial. I further understand that additional arguments may be inserted into this lawsuit at the above-mentioned attorneys deem necessary. Please attach a copy of your military ID card.
Signature: ______________________
As Attorney Orly Taitz is performing this service for her country Pro Bono, any amount that you can contribute will be most helpful. Please, attach your picture in the uniform, a short bio and a letter to fellow citizens and elected officials
[See attached consent form copied directly from the official Orly Taitz web site at http://defendourfreedoms.org/ATTENTIONALLMILITARYPERSONNEL.htm ]
On February 23, 2009, this story broke via World Net Daily with the following headline:
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president’s orders ‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’
The story included the following text:
“As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter. Obama “has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility,” Easterling wrote. “In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.”
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama’s eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don’t have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor,” his statement said.
Later in the article Easterling requests that other military get involved:
“I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced,” he wrote.
Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama’s eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.
“My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action,” he said.
Easterling was “saluted” in a forum on Taitz’ website.
“Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions,” said one contributor.
The false headline was also republished to the Drudge Report that same day.
After reading the article, it appeared that, despite the sensational headline, Easterling had not defied any Presidential order. I complained in my blog to World Net Daily and to Orly Taitz about the punitive danger they had put this soldier in. Of course, the greater danger existed that other military might believe the headline and be influenced to defy orders as well.
By the next morning, the headline had been altered to read:
Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president’s authority ‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’
( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837 )
Neither World Net Daily nor Orly Taitz have ever officially addressed, or apologized for, the false headline published to millions of readers via bold faced caption at the Drudge Report which lasted for approximately twenty-four hours.
Yesterday, I was informed that the latest edition of The Globe Newspaper contains the following headline on the front page next to a picture of Officer Easterling holding a rifle:
“OBAMA MUTINY!
G.I. in Iraq rejects prez as Commander - In - Chief
Lawyer:Hundreds of troops set to follow”
http://www.globemagazine.com
The story includes gatefold coverage including the various statements made by Officer Easterling. I was also quoted in the article to the effect that these statements and the law suit they represent are wrong, dangerous and unnecessary.
I have received numerous letters from active military - and/or the parents of soldiers - expressing gratitude for making this issue public and explaining the laws involved
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88, makes it an offense - punishable by up to one year in prison - to use “contemptuous language” against the President. Other UCMJ provisions, along with various federal statutes, provide a plethora of charges under which persons may be convicted of corrupting the morale of the military and encouraging sedition or insubordination. It’s alarming to consider our military, who take their Constitutional oath seriously, could suffer such disease in the relationship of command. This is exactly what will happen as more join the Taitz law suit or others like it and similar news reports are released.
The viral effect this publicity will have has the potential to destroy the chain of command if allowed to fester without resolve. And this brings me to why I’m writing to you, US Attorney Taylor.
I feel a sense of responsibility since an application for emergency stay I brought against the the New Jersey Secretary of State, Donofrio v. Wells, SCOTUS Docket # 08A407 - with regard to her failure to verify the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama - was the first eligibility suit that went all the way to full conference of the United States Supreme Court after having been referred to the full court by the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
I also feel responsible since back in late January of this year, I published a blog concerning “standing” to challenge Presidential eligibility wherein I suggested active military might hypothetically have standing as citizens but without breaking orders as soldiers. Immediately after publishing this hypothetical discussion, I received messages from military personnel requesting I remove the blog. They forwarded various statutory authority such as applicable provisions of the UCMJ which convinced me that our active military should not be involved in the eligibility issue at all. I subsequently removed the blog post and have continued to strongly discourage active military participation in any eligibility law suits. Recently, I have received messages from various active military asking my opinion, and I have consistently told them to refrain from joining any of these law suits.
I am sure you are aware of the numerous law suits which challenged President Obama as to whether he was a natural born citizen of the United States. Other than my case, a few of those law suits also made it to conference before all nine justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Donofrio v Wells was featured on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, AP, The Washington Times and various other main stream media. It was the publicity of this case and the others which grabbed the attention of soldiers like Officer Easterling since the issues were never decided on the merits as each case was rejected on grounds of standing, or, as to SCOTUS, simply denied full review with no comment.
As long as the issues are left open to wreak havoc, there is no way to foresee or contain the myriad of damage now pending before the nation. The Officer Easterling saga is certainly alarming considering Barack Obama has only held the office of President for less than two months.
The core legal issue of my case against the New Jersey Secretary of State concerned the fact that President Obama’s father was a native of Kenya - but a citizen of Great Britain via the British Nationality Act of 1948 - at the time of President Obama’s birth. Obama Sr. never became - or applied to be - a US citizen. President Obama, at his web site “Fightthesmears.com” admits his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
The legal question I asked the court to decide was whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born” citizen of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution. The question remains unanswered in any United States court.
Most of the other cases which worked their way through various state and federal courts concerned whether Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii. At his web site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called “factcheck.org”. This was his response to all parties requesting proof he was actually born in Hawaii. The audacity of this stunt generated a rush of litigation to have Obama’s credentials verified. Of course, while there is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to be tendered, ordinary people could not understand why Obama was fighting so hard to prevent anyone from seeing his genuine documents apparently on file in Hawaii. It was this attitude of defiance which stimulated citizens across the nation - who are required to present an original birth certificate to any number of Government agencies - to institute litigation challenging Obama’s eligibility.
I do not write to you today to convince you that President Obama is not eligible to the office of President.
I write to convince you that having his title to office cleared of all doubt is in the best interest of the nation at large and specifically the military chain of command. Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding - upon their own motion - in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia. I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.
The Code provides - at 16-3544 - for a jury trial. I respectfully submit that this is the best possible way to settle the fact issue as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. As to the legal issue of whether he is a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii, the Judicial branch has been charged with the power to interpret exactly what those words mean.
I have done extensive research on the quo warranto statute and all possible Constitutional issues which may arise from its use as to a sitting President. The Congressional enactment of the DC Code’s quo warranto statute reflects the authority of Congress as the only branch which may remove the President. I have published the research at my blog.
The URL for my blog is:
http:naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com . (See Quo Warranto Legal Brief, parts 1-3).
The most important aspect of this research, as it may affect your decision to act, comes from the seminal US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the District of Columbia quo warranto statute, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915) wherein the court stated:
“The District Code… permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”
Please sir, nothing could be more proper for the benefit of the nation than having this issue settled. Under 16 - 3502, only the “United States attorney” and/or the “US Attorney General” have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action. Under the holding in Newman, it requires no belief on your part that President Obama is actually ineligible. The US Supreme Court holding in Newman only requires that you “deem it proper” out of a “sense of official responsibility”.
In order to put an end to the bottomless pit of pending litigation, whether in direct attacks by quo warranto, or via collateral attacks - based on eligibility of office challenges - as described and allowed by the DC Court of Appeals decision in Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), quo warranto appears both proper and necessary.
The nation and the military cannot have the chain of command subject to the rot of insubordination by multiple plaintiffs on a case by case basis each challenging specific orders as they arise. The floodgate of litigation will flow too heavily for certain containment.
However, the issue could be settled in one single quo warranto proceeding brought in the proper court by the proper officials. I strongly urge you and Attorney General Holder to act. I am forwarding to Attorney General Holder this same letter.
THREE IMPORTANT ISSUES
I offer the following two points regarding the natural born citizen legal issue to prove that there is convincing evidence, by way of authority and precedent, for citizens to be concerned that the Constitution has been circumvented by Obama’s holding office regardless of whether he was born in the United States. I do not expect to sway you to act on the basis of these points. I simply hope that you will see that, despite media attempts to paint all questions as to Obama’s eligibility as conspiracy theories, the core issue is not a conspiracy theory. It is a question of legal interpretation never decided by any court of law.
POINT I: REGARDING MARBURY v. MADISON
The argument most often tendered to support the position that Obama is eligible to be President (assuming he was born in Hawaii) suggests that any person who - by virtue of being born on US soil - becomes a US citizen would therefore be qualified to hold the offie of President. However, this argument would not even be competent for judicial consideration according to the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison wherein Marshall stated:
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citizen” then the Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen clause would be rendered superfluous and would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”
Prior to Obama’s taking office, no post grandfather clause President or Vice President had ever openly held office after having been born subject to the jurisdiction of another nation’s laws. The following two points are an introduction to the great body of authority which touches the issue, but they are by no means exhaustive.
POINT II: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House of Representatives on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
The 14th Amendment was interpreted by Justice Horace Gray for the holding of the US Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-102(1884), as follows:
“The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other…Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…” (Emphasis added.)
Fourteen years later, Justice Horace Gray did a complete about face on this issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) although the holding in the Elk case was not reversed. Regardless, the direct holding in Wong Kim Ark was restricted to the children of foreign parents permanently domiciled in the United States. Barack Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the United States. I urge you to read both decisions in light of the following recent historical discovery.
POINT III: The recent historical revelation that Chester Arthur was a usurper to the office of President.
Chester Arthur faced an identical scandal as Barack Obama when Arthur ran for Vice President. It was alleged he had been born in Canada or Ireland and that he was a British subject at birth and therefore wasn’t eligible to be President. Recently, my research team discovered, via the official New York State naturalization record of Chester Arthur’s father - available at the Library of Congress - that his father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur was born. So, at the time of his birth, Chester Arthur was a British subject due to his father’s heritage and failure to be naturalized before Chester Arthur was born even though history has proved Chester Arthur was actually born in Vermont.
Our research also proved that Chester Arthur actively concealed this fact by blatantly lying about his parental heritage in various interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper at the time he was running for VP. (See articles at my blog.)
This is an important revelation because it establishes that Barack Obama is the first President in our national history who - at the time of his birth - was openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation. The issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person’s citizenship will be considered “natural born” for the rest of our nation’s history.
Allowing this issue to avoid judicial interpretation will forever raise questions to President Obama’s title to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become President and Commander in Chief.
It’s important to note that Justice Horace Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur and Gray’s mysterious and complete about face from Elk to Wong Kim Ark must be re-examined in the light of revelations concerning Chester Arthur’s secret since Wong Kim Ark appears to sanitize, for history, the illegitimacy of Chester Arthur as President, the man who appointed Justice Horace Gray to the United States Supreme Court.
Regardless, I must reiterate that I am not writing to convince you to take a position as to whether President Obama is actually eligible for the office of President. I am writing to beg that you bring an action in quo warranto so that the issue will be resolved once and for all which must be in the best interest of the nation.
Very Truly Yours,
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
[The above letter is being sent via certified mail and e mail to Jeffrey Taylor, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The same letter will also be sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.]
[Warning: WordPress has some kind of auto generated link system which is linking to some wacky stuff. I'm trying to fix it. I suggest you do not follow any auto generated links to content not included in my blog posts. ]
March 13, 2009 at 9:24 am
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88, makes it an offense - punishable by up to one year in prison - to use “contemptuous language” against the President
>>>Obama is NOT the president!
[Ed. Under our Constitution's separation of powers, Obama is the authorized President. Nothing can chance that right now except a quo warranto proceeding under the District of Columbia Code. This is an emotional issue, but the Constitution is the law of the land and may it remain so forevermore. The good fight is within the Document not outside of it.]
March 13, 2009 at 9:26 am
nice letter
go Leo !
March 13, 2009 at 9:42 am
Looks great! Is there something you would suggest your blog-readers do to assist in the effort to have this letter get the attention it deserves by Taylor and Holder? ie petition, letters, phone call? I really want to see people organize about this and have a loud, clear voice so that our elected officials, the media, and others understand that we are not spreading controversy by conspiracy theory - but that we are law abiding citizens who are seeking truth through the US court system.
[Ed. I am not giving anybody any instructions to do anything. This is America. This is the letter my personal attorney will deliver to AG Holder and US Att. Taylor. I suggest people do what they think is right under their own name. Nobody has permission to use my name other than in reference to the case "Donofrio v Wells", SCOTUS Docket No. 08A407, please include that docket in all reference to my case.]
March 13, 2009 at 9:45 am
leo - many thanks for stepping in - I was concerned that the district court approach might be bypassed by others trying to go directly to SCOTUS and it makes sense to get taylor to bring it to dc with probably less chance of it being tossed on technicality thanks again for your dedicated work - phil stone
March 13, 2009 at 9:48 am
Dear Leo:
I am elated! I just saw your open letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor, and while I’ve just scanned it, I am elated. Thank you so much for your brilliance and your courage to act in the face of so many obstacles. All Americans are, and will remain, in your debt. Sincerely, Robare
March 13, 2009 at 10:00 am
BRAVO, Leo! I stand and applaud your extremely well-written solicitation to Attorney Taylor to start a QW on the issue. You stayed on point, and brought in all the issues associated with the issue at hand, without deflecting from the main purpose of your letter–to initiate a QW proceeding post haste!
Thank you, Leo, that you did not just do the great research that you have performed for months, but that you brought this to a head in the Taylor letter. I’m thrilled, because it now seems we have the right fuel to start the fire.
March 13, 2009 at 10:24 am
Excellent letter Leo. It outlines in detail with no emotion the importance of settling this issue out of respect for our brave military who already have sacrificed so much for our country. I know that if McCain would have won, you would have followed the same path to ensure that our constitution is upheld. We need an answer for the benefit of the office of the presidency and for the welfare of our nation.
March 13, 2009 at 10:33 am
Hi,
Don’t give up . I really wish you would take time to leave a short article on your blog for people to educate the public on where and what they need to do if they were selected to be on federal grand jury. They need to be told and educated on thier power and every person that has a chance to educate thier fellow citizens on the jury as to they can investigate any thing they so choose. Sooo when every talk show host gets a chance they need to tell all listeners to educate thierself and thier neighbors.
Keep your head up and keep helping,,,,, please.
Thank you,
Richard
[Ed. You can start reposting the following two articles:
SCOTUS on the unique power of Grand Jurors
and
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
thanks, Leo ]
March 13, 2009 at 10:37 am
This is a fantastic effort. Thank you for getting involved.
March 13, 2009 at 10:42 am
Please take time to write an article that gives all the details and expain the federal grand jury info. so it can be copy and pasted all over the intrnet. If you explain it , it will go viral and that is what we need to happen , send it to every radio station and send it to Glenn Beck and he will do a special on it I’m sure. I’ll try to get hold of him.
Thanks again,
Richard
[Ed. You can start reposting the following two articles:
SCOTUS on the unique power of Grand Jurors
and
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
thanks, Leo ]
March 13, 2009 at 11:23 am
To others who want to add your voices to petition Mr. Taylor, Leo has posted Mr. Taylor’s physical address above, and here is the e-mail address on his DOJ website: dc.outreach@usdoj.gov. My e-mail, which I just sent to him is as follows:
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I have been following the various lawsuits and legal briefs put forth by several different attorneys over the past several months regarding the Constitutional eligibility (natural birth issue) of Barack Obama to serve as our President. This morning I read attorney Leo Donofrio’s letter to you and I believe he did a marvelous job of wrapping all the issues together into a cogent compilation sufficient to capture your attention.
Sir, I read your bio on the DOJ website and am impressed with the experience you have had. I believe you are the man who can take all the pro bono work and research that has been sacrificially and painstakingly done by Mr. Donofrio over a period of several months and proceed with a Quo Warranto action to settle this raging controversy once and for all. Americans deserve to know the truth and to have our doubts forever settled by an investigation into the matters raised in Leo’s research. By virtue of your position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, you are only one of two persons who has the power delegated to you by Congress to proceed with a QW action in this matter. Attorney General Eric Holder has been asked to do so, and has thus far refused to even acknowledge this tempest in a teapot brewing right under his nose.
Jeffrey Taylor, I believe you are our man. So I add my voice to the chorus of others who may be writing you and ask that you please initiate the QW so we can get on with our lives. Many of us have been basically held captive by this cloud of suspicion hanging over our country. If Mr. Obama had not sealed access to his birth and school records, but instead was transparent and forthcoming about the questions concerning his birth status, we would not be where we are today. However, we’re here, we’re in the dark, and we ask you to shed the light that the law allows and let’s get to the truth of the matter once and for all.
God bless you, Jeffrey Taylor, and thank you for listening to America!
March 13, 2009 at 11:42 am
Leo,
Thank-you so much for your hard work and dedication, devoted to informing the Nation of the Constitutional issues relating to eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. You have amply rewarded the trust of the Framers of the Constitution, who sought to empower Citizens to protect and enhance our Constitutional Republic, by your efforts to encourage other concerned American citizens to try to ensure that The Constitution of The United States is taken seriously by the political institutions and the Judiciary.
Please allow me to repeat, why I think this matter is so vitally important to the future of our Nation and indeed to the future of the world.
“The strongest argument for the Quo Warranto proceedings to be instigated, is that failure to do so would fatally undermine the tiny remnants of faith retained by the American public in the political institutions and the rule of law. Once that is totally gone, then the safety of the entire nation would be in jeopardy. Just imagine it - The United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world reduced to anarchy and despotism. The ‘Attorney General of The United States’ and the ‘United States Attorney’ need to WAKE UP and they need to do so URGENTLY - before it is too late.
This is far more important than the merits or de-merits of Barack Obama, or the DNC or the GOP. This is about the bedrock of The United States of America - The United States Constitution. Lose that and we will discover that our American home is built on shifting sand - indeed quicksand.
We ALL need to make them hear, make them listen and make them ACT”.
March 13, 2009 at 11:45 am
Mr. Donofrio,
Thank you very much for posting your letter to the US Attorney.
This issue needs resolving immediately and you have certainly pointed to the correct manner in which that should be done. Through the appropriate court and satisfying all conditions of separation of powers which may arise among the branches of government and following the law precisely.
I happen to personally believe that Mr. Obama is ineligible and that he, his legal associates, the Democrat Party, and most Congressman know this. This is evident because of the amount of interest shown toward the provision in the Constitution beginning in 2006 and continuing into early 2008 attempting to get around the provision.
They also knew that the manner in which he would be challenged would require explicit legal detail beyond the understanding of most ordinary citizens and attorneys to deserve the case being heard on it’s merits. Statements from Mr. Obama’s supporters such as, “all the cases have been thrown out” without understanding the reason have undermined getting to the real issue.
Also, the issue of the birth certificate has harmed getting to the facts of the eligibility issue. Where Mr. Obama was born may be noteworthy as you have stated, it is not relevant to the basic issue of ineligibility. The provision in the Constitution has stood there for 220 years as a sentinel to prevent anyone becoming President that may have allegiance to a foreign government or ideology from becoming, in addition to President, commander in chief of the US Army. Many, many associations and actions in Mr. Obama’s past greatly concern me and reinforces my belief that the Framers of our Constitution placed that guard there for someone exactly like Mr. Obama.
It has not helped that the main stream media, including conservative talk show hosts, have failed to understand the Constitution and have yielded to false and inflammatory information provided by Mr. Obama’s supporters.
I have sent 10 faxes each (total 30) to my two Senators and my Representative on the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, with only one single reply of a general nature unrelated to the questions asked from one Senator. The total lack of response from our elected officials on this specific matter has been extremely frustrating.
I am very much encouraged by recent comments of Justice Scalia to the Federalist Society (November 20, 2008) wherein Justice Scalia stated that “good judges” rule on the law and not what they might like the law to be. In this specific case of eligibility, the words of the Constitution are not ambiguous and mean the same today as they did in 1789. The Constitution is a legal document. It is not a “living document” subject to the whims of a current court. The only thing that can change Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution. That has been attempted many times and rejected.
Again Mr. Donofrio, thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of our national legal officials. If we have any semblance of a Constitutional Republic remaining, the Constitution will be upheld and we will be part of the way back to returning the United States to being governed under the “rule of law”. We The People can not , and will not, live in the shadow of the possibility that the highest office of the land, President of the United States, is being occupied under the cloud of being ineligible to serve in that office.
[Ed. Thank you for this letter. It is on point. And thanks to all for similar comments. I appreciate them more than you know.]
March 13, 2009 at 11:56 am
Thank you, Leo, for your efforts on behalf of 300,000,000 Americans.
March 13, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Wow. This letter was just posted to Comcast forums and was immediately locked up by the moderators. Wow.
[Ed. Really? That makes me excited. It tells me that this letter makes people in power nervous.]
March 13, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Heavenly father, we come to you each and everyday to worship you, to praise you. to give you thanks and to give you all the glory lord. Father we thank you For everything you have done, For everything you are doing and For everything you are going to do lord. Father you said in your word to cast all of our cares upon you and let our hearts not be troubled. Father as a true witness to the almighty God and having recieved your grace on numerous occassions, father I lift up to you Leo C. Donofrio and our shared cares of numerous peoples on the issue at hand. Father you said in your word that we are in this world but we are not of this world. We know that satan is the prince of air and he may not be able to be defeated on this earth but you hold reign over him. Your promise was not riches and gold here on this earth but enternal life with you our father. Father I cast this burden that is on this great nation on you and I ask you in the name of Jesus Christ to settle this now and for ever more. In Jesus name we pray. AMEN
Leo from experience sit and meditate and pray with your packet in hand. and take those papers before you mail them and lift them high over your head and offer it up to him in his word. May the peace and grace be upon you my brother. You have put on the sheild of armour.
lord god lamb of god you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. lord god lamb of god you take away the sins of the world grant us peace.
March 13, 2009 at 12:13 pm
As a citizen,and as a former member of the military I thank you for this letter!
The “best interest of the nation” is only preserved when men act to do so, and this act is historic.
May others be so bold, and also act to protect our nation from harm, as has been our tradition from the beginning.
May justice prevail and faith in our system of law be restored.
Thank you Mr. Leo Donofrio, for all you have accomplished in this effort!
March 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Great letter!
I will now begin writing my own to those two gentleman, wiith no anger, malice or other negative emotion. But an appeal for the best interest of the nation.
I have clipped from your 3-part brief, and will include some of those in my letter, including a true gem.
When we see on Obama’s campagn website fightthesmears, and also at factcheck.org his admission of dual citizenship at birth, and the phrasing posted:
““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.”, it rasies a legal question, which will not go away, but must be answered for the sake of our nation.
That question is propely asked “How can British law ‘govern’ the ‘birth status’ of a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US?”
Americans want this legally answered.
March 13, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Is Law Also Legitimate Matter Of Fact?
(Apollonian, 13 Mar 09)
Hello, I used to be legal assistant major; then I studied philosophy of law. I appreciate very much all ur efforts and especially ur learned commentary which I’ve found very helpful.
However, I note in ur last blog u rather seem to pontificate, giving absolutely NO references I’m aware of (but correct me if I’m wrong), to effect Juries cannot determine matter of law–only fact.
[Ed. Juries "consider" law all the time, but they don't "interpret" clauses of the Constitution. The judicial branch does that. Perhaps my original choice of words confused the issue. ]
But law itself is legitimate subject of fact; further, jurors have the right to judge matters of law, as numerous legal authorities and even judges have acknowledged. Thanks for ur comments and attn. Apollonian
March 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Good luck and God speed.
Some deconstuctionists may question that, if the US survived the usurper Chester Arthur, then why can’t we survive Obama? or rather, “What’s the big deal?” …and they may have a point.
[Ed. One big deal is wondering whether Justice Horace Gray's bizarre schizoid treatment of the 14th Amendment between Elk v. Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark indicate he had split personality disorder or whether, in the alternative, he had become aware that the President who appointed him, Chester Arthur, would be considered a usurper should there not be a holding like the one in Wong Kim Ark. His opinion in the two cases are so at odds with each other that there is NO possible way to reconcile them. The stench of personal interest reeks from the pages of Wong Kim Ark. It ought to be reversed. Big time. Having a usurper in the office casts doubts on history and precedent. Not good.]
A second big deal, and perhaps even a more important issue, is that, at the time of Chester Arthur’s Vice Presidency, Hinman’s accusations that Arthur was not born in the US were obviously not true. Furthermore, there was no internet where the stench of ineligibility could go viral and spread like rot to the military. Word travels alot faster these days. Unfortunately, nobody thought to check whether Chester’s father had become a US citizen before CA was born.]
Except… other than his secret, Arthur wasn’t out to undo the rest of the nation’s foundations, nor did he try to institute any radically inherent anti-American policies or governance.
[Ed. The holding in Wong Kim Ark by Horace Gray (appointed by Chester Arthur) is as radical a holding you can ever imagine. Especially in light of Gray's prior opinion in Elk v. Wilkins. Something made him go out on a big limb to embarass his own legacy as a SCOTUS Justice. Wong Kim Ark is garbage in light of Elk v. Wilkins, and the fact that they were written by the same man is insane or worse. IMHO.]
By all accounts, President Arthur can not be made out to have been an enemy within. The status quo, more or less, survived him and his secret. Not so with Obama. We may not survive his reign of terror.
“…against all enemies foreign and domestic” is not in the Presidential oath of office.
…but it IS in the oath of offices for all US Attys and the US Atty General.
Let’s hope they meant it when they took it.
March 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm
God Bless You Leo.
Wow, that is an outstanding accounting of what this is all about in one concise letter. I too have written to US Attorney Taylor. I’m sure your letter will make much more sense than mine, at least from a legal stand point.
Thanks again Leo for all you are doing.
March 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Absolutely wonderful, Leo. You did good!!!! And I hope that Taylor reads and re-reads your letter a few times and actually thinks about everything you stated in there. You did good, my fine young scholarly friend. Your mind is brilliant and unmatchable.
I really hope Taylor acts an does the right thing.
March 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm
God bless you and keep you, Leo. Thank you.
March 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031203736_pf.html?ref=fp1
This was in Huffington Post today. US Attorneys will be subject to change, so time is of the essence.
[Ed. There aren't many people who would have better standing as "interested persons" under 16-3503 than US Attorneys fired by Obama. They could issue a direct attack on his eligibility via quo warranto under the District of Columbia Code and they could also issue "collateral attacks" as per the DC Court of Appeals holding in the Andrade case (see part 3 of my QW legal brief).
Furthermore, US Attorney Taylor, being the only US Attorney who has the ability to challenge Obama's eligibility via quo warranto in 16-3502, would be the absolute best candidate for "interested person" standing under 16-3502 and the SCOTUS holding in Newman if he were fired by Obama.]
March 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Dear Leo,
I don’t know whether your extensive research has already taken up the sources below, but on another web site I picked up the following regarding clues to an original definition of a ‘natural born citizen:’
“If you really want to know what the idea and concept of natural born meant in the time it was written, read “Thomas Jefferson’s Notes” on his letters to Delegates in December 1783.
But you could also find this information yourself by looking through the online archives of the Library of Congress. It’s called “American Memory.” You can do a search on the phrase “natural born”. There are several documents that come up, including the Journals of the Continental Congress.
The key to all of this is to try to understand what the framers meant by natural born.”
The statements above are in answer to a query to source the alleged quote from Thomas Jefferson included below:
” Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen. “We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. ”
I have not yet found the actual Virginia Birthright Law of 1777 Jefferson allegedly wrote, nor have I found a source for Jefferson’s alleged quote.
On a related issue, I wonder if you might have any thoughts on an issue that has troubled me for some time relative to Obama’s open admission on his web site during his campaign that he had dual citizenship at birth.
As Obama is a Constitutional lawyer I find it quite plausible that Obama and his cadre of attorneys carefully researched the accepted definition of a natural born citizen before he announced his candidacy, found the definition sufficiently vague for their purposes, and specifically decided to take his birth status ‘off-the-table’ by acknowledging his dual citizenship at birth and blatantly daring anyone to challenge his ‘natural born’ eligibility because of his dual citizenship — and no one did.
[Ed. Take that one step further... they put this issue beneath the big green neon billboard of sexy salacious intrigue, the infamous COLB... it distracted everybody perfectly as the main legal problem Obama faced hid in plain site just beneath it in faded print font. Until my suit in NJ came along during the last week on October, nobody had challenged his eligibility on that issue in the courts. IMHO their tactics were genius. Not that I approve ethically. I would have respected Obama had he had a town hall meeting on this issue or if he had brought a law suit for declaratory judgment to the federal courts prior to his becoming President-elect. SoI don't appreciate the tactics morally. But as a chess player and poker player, a person who is intrigued by game theory - it was brilliant. ]
In a calculated risk/reward decision on Obama’s part, I conclude that Obama felt his historical candidacy superceded the US Constitution and that if ultimately challenged in the courts he would prevail — as he has already prevailed in the court of public opinion which has disregarded and dismissed any challenge to his legitimacy.
My conclusion above is in no way meant to suggest that the pursuit of the Quo Warranto option is not necessary. It is absolutely essential that it be pursued!
And I deeply appreciate your willingness to write the open letter you authored and dated today.
March 13, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Bravo, Leo. Just the right tone and let’s hope that one of the two letters trigger the QW action implored for.
March 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Should either of these gentlemen, government officials who owe a duty to this country to uphold and insure the proper execution of the laws of this nation, actually peruse the letter and review the research found here, I second the Open Letter, because we need as a Nation, to be joined, as people governed by the law, and not by lawless disregard for it.
Finally, there should be clarity for those who place their very lives on the line, not just in battle, BUT in the very real risk they take in justly QUESTIONING their chain of command. Because upholding their oath to the Constitution, for their people, is a solemn oath they value more than their lives.
It’s a country called America, who’s people benefit from their sacrifice, lets us all put her first!
[Ed. Clarity is key. That's the goal. Agreed.]
March 13, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Great letter and thank you for writing it.
March 13, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Thank you Leo, for all that you’ve done and continue to do for our Constitution and our nation.
March 13, 2009 at 3:10 pm
trend watch : Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor « Natural ……
[...]John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to t[...]…
March 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Hello Leo,
Republican Florida Congressman Bill Posey filed a Bill yesterday called H.R. 1503. Title: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.
His office said the text of the legislation will be available “probably on Monday.”
The office said without my asking one question said quickly that “the Bill has nothing to do with now, it has to do with the 2012 Election.” They asked me if I was a reporter. I said no. They quickly but professionally wanted to end the call so I thanked them and said good bye.
What do you think? Well, part of me feels like this action, defined above, should have taken place in this past Election? Afterall, didn’t we have a Constitution in place this past Election that would have required the qualifications to be verified before voting?
Do we have to have a Bill or legislation passed to make Congress follow the Constitution? Maybe this legislation will put the process in place to insure only qualified candidates are listed on the ballots going forward but there should be some retroactive amendment added to verify past Presidents qualifications, one in particular.
Thank you for your efforts and expertise.
[Ed. They could just as easily legislate a bill that requires any sitting President to offer a birth certificate to prove his eligibility. There's no Constitutional reason why they couldn't make the provision available now.
Think about it this way. If they argue that they can't do anything about it now then how would they challenge an incumbent President later? Either they have the power or they don't. They do because for all the reasons cited in part 1-3 of my QW brief.
Why don't they just enact something which pertains to any President in office? They're avoiding it on purpose. ]
March 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Here is a copy of the Bill HR 1503, FYI
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090313_posey_smith.html
I guess Posey’s office changed their mind about posting in on Monday.
[Ed. Again, somebody needs to ask them why they don't make it apply to the current President. If they can make him supply one in 2012 while he is an encumbent, then they make him supply one now. This is a proper mantra to bombard them with.]
March 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Thanks Leo. This is a great start. Puts the ball in their court…when will we get another shot? or do we do a full-court press?
Attny Taylor: Bush appointee:
“Mr. Taylor’s position came under heightened interest in March 2007 during the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. On March 20, 2007, President Bush declared in a press conference that White House staff would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress.[3] One who ignores a Congressional subpoena can be held in contempt of Congress, but the D.C. U.S. Attorney must convene a grand jury to start the prosecution of this crime.
Under 2 U.S.C. § 194, once either the House or the Senate issues a citation for contempt of Congress, it is referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”[4] It is unclear (as of March 20, 2007) whether Mr. Taylor would fulfill this duty to convene a grand jury, or resist Congress at the direction of Bush or Gonzales.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_A._Taylor
March 13, 2009 at 4:58 pm
This was a first draft and all typos appear to have been corrected as of
5:56PM8:18PM.I expect this is the exact text of the letter I will have my personal attorney deliver to US Attorney Taylor’s office and US Attorney General Holder’s office.
I will be answering comments now, but there are a bunch and I can’t promise I’ll finish with all of them by tonight.
Thanks,
Leo C. Donofrio
[Ed. Thanks to all the proofreaders.]
March 13, 2009 at 5:01 pm
You don’t need to answer mine.
I’m just wishing you good luck. Let’s hope Holder and/or Taylor will go forward with this.
March 13, 2009 at 5:22 pm
well leo this looks like an airtight aproach but!!! who sways the opinion of these two gentlemen? i have completly given up any hope of ever having the constitution and our laws followed.
[Ed. It's not fair to judge them before they have a chance to act. Give them a chance.]
this country died a long time ago and i dont even know how to put a finger on when it started as it is such a diluted stretched out theft of freedom and rights that were faught for and died for to enact by our fore fathers.
please inform us of the outcome of this letter you have sent on this site if possible. you know that there are so many of us that hope against hope.
thanks again leo for all of us who are out of our minds with rage!!!!!!
[Ed. That which angers you, owns you. I'd rather you were sarcastic than angry. But I'm sure you can find something constructive to add to the cause of liberty if you really want to. Have peace man. Then get creative within the law. Word.]
March 13, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Hi Leo
You should be taking a long (and well deserved) break after these past few days of postings. I know my brain strains just digesting it all so fast. I can’t imagine what yours feels like for generating it.
Sometimes I get into an statistical kind of mood and crunch numbers.
Here are some:
Internet postings to news groups on the eligibility issue*
Month - Number of Posts
May 2008 - 14
Jun 2008 - 292
Jul 2008 - 214
Aug 2008 - 254
Sep 2008 - 227
Oct 2008 - 1835
Nov 2008 - 1318
Dec 2008 - 1632
Jan 2009 - 525
Feb 2009 - 1204
Mar 01 - Mar 12 2009 - 843
*This was based on news group archive searches for threads with eligibility issues stated in the thread title and key words in the body. There was no effort to ascertain pro or con with regard to the issue.
[Ed. I've had 4700 comments here alone. And I've read almost every single one of them. Sorry if any slipped through.]
This is just one portion of internet activity, but I think it shows a pretty dramatic increase in interest of this subject. This lends credence to the fact that issue is not going away, but will increase until something is done to resolve the issue either way. I plan to gather more statistics to enforce this point and write to my federal representatives informing them of the growing public interest, requesting that they use whatever influence they have to urge Taylor and Holder to handle and start the resolution of this issue.
There are some very scary things being said in the news groups, by both sides. There are some very disturbing things being said that make me worry about the mental health of some of the people making these postings. I’m not saying this in a way that questions their sanity. What I mean to say is that I see people becoming depressed and over-burdened by the gravity of the issues.
Well, that’s more than I intended on posting. Keep up the good fight and take plenty of breaks from this. It’s not healthy to be too immersed.
Thanks
March 13, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Leo,
I hope your personal attorney hands the letter directly to US Attorney Taylor. I have suspicions that some of these communications get thrown in the trash can by middle men.
Birdy
March 13, 2009 at 6:20 pm
According to World Net Daily, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503 that would
According to WND, George Cecala, Posey’s spokeman, explained that if passed, the amendment to election law would require Obama, just like any other candidate, to provide a birth certificate in any future presidential elections.
[Ed. Why don't they write then law to cover the office of POTUS and not just the election? That would force him top produce a BC now. If they can force him to do it in 2012 when he's still an incumbent POTUS, then why can't they do it now?]
March 13, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I listened to your Chalice interview. Very informational. But as a quick note: You claimed Barack Obama (and team) were very (paraphrase) “ingenious” for their conniving actions to pull wool over the eyes of the public. I think the word you’re intending is “disingenuous”. Close in sound, but different in connotation. Any evil action, as small as one might be, ends in destruction of self and environment, at some point in time, so an evil action can never be brilliant. Unless you believe destruction is a form of brilliance?
[Ed. I was speaking as a chess player and poker player. Tactically, it was really sharp but ethically it sucked. Your vocabulary word is a very good one for the purpose. ]
This relates to our argument about the phrase “thief in the night”.
[Ed. The actual quote is "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." It means that the day of the Lord will sneak up on you quietly, unannounced. I have no problem with the metaphor. There are dark things in this world, and not being clean of soul and ready for the Day of the Lord is the darkest thing I could ever imagine. ]
Seriously, Leo, do you ever want any negative label associated to your name, especially when you are leading a Good Cause?
Oh, well. One more thing concerning your interview. You said, and I’m paraphrasing, that “Barack Obama might not even be aware that he’s not a natural born Citizen since he might not know what the meaning of natural born Citizen is.”
[Ed. I believe I said "might not believe". There's no way for him to "know" (assuming he was born in Hawaii) whether he is a nbc because the issue has not been settled to an exact science by statute or case law. Everyone has no more than an opinion. OBama can't "know" the answer to the question of whether he is an nbc.]
That’s fine and dandy if one considers that the Court hasn’t strictly defined it in a way, I guess. But, as I’ve mentioned before, Barack Obama has decided what it means to him based on sponsoring Resolution 511. Even though, 511 isn’t Law, it still blatantly portrays what Barack Obama believes to be the definition for natural born Citizen. Agreed?
I 100% appreciate your movement to follow up on the fine legal aspects of everything you have followed up on.
And a quick shout out to Phooey and Looey! Didn’t mean to leave them out.
March 13, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Leo, your concern for our active military is commendable and I applaud it….Have you ever considered that maybe the few brave active military plaintiffs in Orly’s case are fully aware of the ramifications of their actions?…..These people didn’t enter the military through a “draft”, they volunteered knowing full well that they may be rerquired to lay down their lives for what is right…..Could it be possible that they are even willing to face a court martial because they believe so strongly that what they are doing is the right thing to do?……
[Ed. It's not just about them. It's about the relationship of command. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, I'm hoping US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor ad US AG Eric Holder will put the genie back in the bottle by settling the issue once and for all via the proper Constitutional statute, 16-3502.]
Could it be possible that one or more of them even welcome a court martial, as they may feel that it is the only way to get enough publicity to force the eligibility issue to closure?……Soldiers are a special breed of people that are willing to make sacrifices that many others can’t muster……I don’t know if being willing to face court martial is the intention of any of these brave souls, but it would not surprise me…..I hope that you will give these possibilities serious consideration…..I supported your’s and Cort’s cases before the SCOTUS and whether or not Orly’s case stands a snowball’s chance in hell, I support hers too….We all should….She is trying.
[Ed. I don't have to support anything I don't believe in.]
March 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm
[...] Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor [...]
March 13, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Leo, this just came up on the internet from WND in reference to an action that took place in California and Gary Kreep.
[URGENT CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL UPDATE
Another Court Helps Obama Hide Truth - Is He A Natural-Born Citizen?
USJF To Appeal Judge's Ruling that Only Members of Congress Can Challenge Qualifications of President
[Ed. That's exactly the correct ruling. What the hell did anybody think was going to happen? We have a little thing called "separation of powers". It's in the Constitution. People ought to read it carefully, the Constitution that is. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the authority to remove a sitting President or to even challenge his qualifications. Before the election, he was just a candidate and the various Secretaries of State had power to police their ballots under statutes, under the US Constitution, each SOS must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
As each SOS is the election commissioner in their state, the Supremacy clause demands, in order for them to uphold their oath of office, that they make sure only Constitutionally qualified candidates appear on the ballots. The ball was dropped 50 times.
We know the SOS has this power because they exercised it as to Roger Calero being removed from 5 of 10 state ballots where the Socialist Workers Party qualified for ballot access. If they can verify as to Calero they can verify as to Obama.... unless this is just blatant racism against South Americans. Right?
After Obama was sworn in, the idea of suing any SOS ...NOW, post election - is simply absurd and a total waste of time and resources. What's the point in suing in a court that has no jurisdiction to act? What's the point in suing the SOS who has no authority to act as well? Not post election.
None of these cases will go anywhere. None of them. Quo warranto via the DC Code is the only possible way the issue will ever be settled in any court besides SCOTUS and that should be avoided. Congress has exercised its qualification of removal of the President for ineligibility via the DC Code. It's a proper authorization of Constitutional power. End of story. There is no doubt about that. And it provides for a jury trial. The best bet is if US Att Taylor or AG Holder bring it on their own motion, but 16-3503 allows "interested persons" to request leave of the court if the AG or US Att won't grant consent.
That's the only peephole of light available to private plaintiffs, and just like the nbc legal issue as to Obama's British birth, people ought to be wondering why various law suits are ignoring such and flopping around in courts which have no authority to do anything about their complaints.
I find it all rather Constitutionally absurd. These law suits will all meet the same fate. Dismissed, and rightly so under the Constitution. If you're fighting to protect the Document, then you shouldn't also be trying to do an end around its separation of powers, especially when you have Constitutional options to avail yourself of. ]
Dear Fellow American,
[Ed. snip...]
Further, the Court blocked our subpoena for the college records of Mr, Obama!
[Ed. How do these people have the right to review anybody's private college records? It's absurd. ]
USJF IS CONTINUING THE FIGHT
[Ed. The fight to use every possible legal device you can think of other than the statute enacted specifically to challenge that somebody may be a usurper? A warrior chooses his battleground with great care. He chooses someplace he has some chance of winning. He doesn't fight on enemy turf if he has a better option.]
This letter may be the one of the most important things that you ever read!
The problem is we just do not know whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States… [Ed. snipped.]
We do know that a fake birth certificate showed up on Obama’s website!
[Ed. No, they don't "know" that. They suspect it, but they don't "know" it.]
We do know that Mr. Obama’s legal team is doing everything that it can, in every case filed over this issue; to make sure that no one has access to his birth certificate!
Click to Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth!
[Ed. There it is. That's the money shot right there.
I snipped the rest of this. It's legally absurd. But what does the law have to do with anything these days? Not much.]
I get WND and there is some asking for money to be donated to the cause and such, but I thought that you would like to see the action of the Court in California from Jerry Brown, the US Attorney there. Could this possibly have any effect on what you are trying to have happen in DC??
[Ed. It's not at all relevant to quo warranto.]
March 13, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Thanks Leo. Awesome letter. Just the right tone. On point all the way.
You are a true hero for liberty and the rule of law.
For the good of our country, may the legal fight close rapidly with an unambiguous finding. May God protect you and your family during these trying times.
March 13, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Leo said:
Since Posey’s bill is a I would conclude that it is a bill designed to fill a gap in the election process, and that it is not a bill designed to challenge Obama’s eligibility per se.
[Ed. If they feel that there is a "gap" in the process, obviously because of this election and all the eligibility fall out, then why wait until 2012 to fix it? This is a BS measure designed to calm the masses. People should be excited because this was released on the same day I released my letter to US Attorney Taylor with a real threat of the possibility of a jury trial on this issue. Somebody somewhere is starting to sweat. If they can do ask to see his BC in 2012 when he's still an incumbent, they can ask to see it now. It's absurd. Totally absurd.]
If I assume that this is a bill that applies to any and all presidential candidates, I am led to a conundrum that I cannot resolve. Can a bill apply to Obama, the candidate, without applying to Obama, the incumbent president?
[Ed. That's no conundrum. That's just common sense. He will be a candidate but he will also be the sitting President. Again, this is absurd. You're supposed to settle for this so you'll calm down and move along, "No need to worry, we've got it all under control in 2012". Hilarious. Not.]
The reason I ask this question is that I sense that there would be a separation of powers issue if the bill applied to Obama, the incumbent president.
[Ed. There's no separation of powers issue. Congress has already exercised their authority to challenge POTUS eligibility via the DC Code quo warranto statute. They certainly have the Constitutional authority to enact a law requesting proof that the President is actually eligible.]
March 13, 2009 at 10:13 pm
[Ed. I'm working on an important blog post concerning the career Of US Attorney Taylor. I am impressed with the work he's done. He seems like a straight shooter with the same kind of non-political ethics similar to Patrick Fitzgerald, who I believe in and have faith in. I'm working on this right now. I'll ask you to resubmit any comments on US Attorney's Taylor to that blog post.]
Just food for thought
As soon as Barack Obama has the power to hire and fire, one of his first acts will be to replace Jeffrey Taylor as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Taylor, the highest ranking and most powerful law enforcement official in town, has two strikes against him.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/HarryJaffe/120308_Does_DC_need_a_new_AG.html
12-04-08
.–This is something else: soon-to-be ex-U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey A. Taylor is saying that the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey upset members of the prosecution and that it was a “shock” when she committed suicide on May 1st, 2008.
This is possibly related to the recent FBI Arrest in DC Tech dept.
PDF] NEWS RELEASEFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Feb 13, 2009 … technology without the required license, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, Matthew G. Olsen,. Acting Assistant Attorney General for National …
http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2009/doj_02132009.pdf - Similar pages
Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law.
http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0545
March 13, 2009 at 10:30 pm
[...] Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted his open letter to US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor explaining why Mr. Taylor should take the quo [...]
March 13, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Great letter. There might be a typo in the phrase “…Congress as the only judicial branch which may remove the President.” I have never seen Congress referred to as a “judicial branch,” just one of three branches and distinctly not the judicial branch. As a lay person it broke the flow of reading your argument, even if Congress might correctly be a “judicial branch” when removing a President.
[Ed. Thanks. That was a very bad typo. The final draft that goes via my attorney will be airtight. Good job to you and everyone else who helped clean this up.]
March 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Leo, been following your blog since December and you are one impressive dude! Keep up the good work.
Don’t know if you know this yet (most likely you do), but according to Orly Taitz, they talked to Scalia at a public event in LA and he said he never even heard of your case or any of the others.
“While undersigned counsel questioned Justice Scalia during above mentioned book signing in Los Angeles, as to what happened, why the case was not forwarded to the open court hearing on the merits, he had absolutely no clue about the case, not this, nor similar cases by Wrotnowski and Donofrio.”
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/motion-to-reconsider-lightfoot-v-bowen.aspx
I still remeber you talking about that Danny Bickel guy sabatoging you and Cort early on. Looks like you were right.
Bick-head sabatoged ALL THE CASES!!!
[Ed. Scalia didn't say he hadn't known about the cases. She asked him "what happened" in the conferences as to those cases, and to that he answered "I don't remember, I don't recall"... allegedly. I haven't seen any other coverage of this other than her account. Do you expect Scalia to answer her question as to what happened behind closed doors at SCOTUS? Regardless, the accounting of her meeting with him is so bizarre and strange, I can't give it any serious attention whatsoever.
Think of it this way, if Scalia never heard of these cases, then how is he able to tell her he will hear the quo warranto without knowin anything about her or her case? How can he make a decision as to what case he will hear if he doesn't know squat about it, if he doesn't remember these other cases? Perhaps he was messing with her mind, I don't know. He cracks alot of jokes when he gives speeches. He's actually a pretty funny guy. I think, if we do have an accurate accounting of their meeting, that he was joking around with her. No SCOTUS scholar would take that meeting seriously regardless of what may happen to any case submitted to them on this issue.]
Apparently they are trying to hand deliver the letter at that link directly to Justice Roberts today at another public event.
Please stay involved with YOUR case. You definitly have the strongest posistion on the subject.
I want to say thank you for all the info. My eyes are now wide open.
Rock on!!!
March 13, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Leo,
Can a fired US Attorney for the District of Columbia still bring the suit? I am guessing the answer is yes, but not with the instant standing the sitting US Attorney would have - but I am not an attorney.
[Ed. I would agree with you. They could bring it under 3503 and would have the best chance at standing for a "direct attack", but they would also have standing for a "collateral attack" under the holding in the Andrade case, not to removal but as to their being fired.]
All I know is what I have learned from you - which is considerable! Thank you!
Regarding HR 1503 - it certainly should be retroactive.
All the best!
March 13, 2009 at 11:30 pm
IMHO….the AG is a bought asset & in Obama’s hip pocket. That leaves Mr. Taylor. The desired end result of at least the previous three administrations going back to Bush #1 as well as Obama’s current administration is to make the Constitution of the United States of America OBSOLETE. The more the government can, does, and will subvert the Constitution in the future is the goal. Once they can submit to the American public that the document is no longer viable they will “suggest” a new Constitution be imposed since the original has outlived it’s usefulness.
BTW the U.N. has had jurisdiction over our National Parks since the mid ’90’s and is confiscating private lands around those parks as buffer zones, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, Obama refuses to prove his eligibility to be president, SCOTUS refuses full review of the cases it has has to look at with “no comment”, yesterday an article appeared and then conveniently disappeared from a major media website regarding the U.N and “LOST”- thats “Law Of the Sea Treaty” in which the U.N. would have control of the waters from the U.S. coast outward 200 miles, this would also include any water ways that feed into the oceans i.e. the Mississippi river. Some farmers in southern California have had the water turned off to their farms by the government, in Colorado the increased cost of water rights is driving farmers out of business…no farmers-no food. The American public is being bankrupted by a spend all administration that tells us we need to tighten our belts while they’re loosening theirs.
The American people, We The People, MUST stand together to get to the truth of Obama’s citizenship, we must also fix this government that is selling us out piece by piece, because if we don’t do something very soon the country our Founding Fathers left for us will be a distant memory.
March 13, 2009 at 11:44 pm
WOW….I like that you are a perfectionist when it comes to this issue!! GREAT JOB and best wishes to our country for an end to this controversy>
March 13, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Leo,
Not sure if someone caught the extra “the” in the sixth paragraph from the bottom of your letter “the the Library of Congress”.
[ed. Thanks.
]
Sorry I am reading this so late and didn’t see it sooner.
I also am compelled to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this wonderfully composed letter…you are a true patriot and a blessing to this nation.
March 14, 2009 at 12:20 am
Leo,
I just wanted to make sure that you knew about this dismissal and if possible, would set us all straight on why, which you did and I am very happy to say that I agree with your assessments.
Thanks a bunch for your thoughts on this and for coming in and telling about the why’s it was dismissed.
Sorry if I upset you, I didn’t mean to do that at all. There are so many things going around out there in the internet that I felt if you weighed in on this it might help to set the record straight, for all of us who are watching these things. I am 100% behind you and the quo warranto way to do the right thing. I sincerely do hope that Tayor takes this case up and sees it through for all the right reasons, also.
[Ed. I wasn't upset with you. I'm upset with all the distractions these other cases continue to fester. If these other attorneys want to do something about a United States office in the District of Columbia (ie the sitting President) to which they think a usurper is illegally holding, then WHY THE HELL DO THEY ALL CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE ONLY STATUTE THAT PROVIDES THE MEANS BY WHICH HE CAN BE CHALLENGED AND REMOVED...WITH THE AID OF A JURY...??? I'm just sayin', you know what I mean?
They're out there in every damn court you could imagine, trying every trick they can think of, none of which can circumvent the Constitutional separation of powers... but as to the one Constitutional device enacted by Congress which allows for a challenge to an alleged usurper, they ALL have punted. Say what?]
March 14, 2009 at 1:20 am
Donofrio wrong on Elk v Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark…
Leo Donofrio argues that Elk v Wilkins Judge Gray took a position in conflict with Wong Kim Ark, when in fact, in proper context, the inevitable conclusion is that the two cases are fully consistent and that Elk v Wilkins was limited to Indians. In add…
[Ed. That blog can't be taken seriously.
The "language" and "arguments" in Elk were not limited to Indians. Later in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray said the "holding" was, but a careful review of his opinion in Elk makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR the arguments Justice Horace Gray made were NOT limited to Indians. Check the following statement made by Justice Gray in Elk:
"Indians...are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government..."
Here Justice Gray tells us that "the children of subjects of any foreign Government" are not born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof when their parents were born within the domain of another Government. Barack Obama Sr. was born within the domain of Great Britain/Kenya. So, according to this statement by Justice Gray, Obama could not be President. That statement right there does not pertain to Indians, it's a judgment of law regarding any foreign subject's children which Gray uses to cement his holding that Indians are not citizens under the 14th Amendment.
And that's not all. I'm doing a comprehensive blog post on the two decisions. They are both rather longwinded SCOTUS decisions. When the relevant passages are put side by side, it becomes obvious that Gray went out on a very deceptive limb in Wong Kim Ark, one of the most devious SCOTUS opinions ever written.
Anybody who says the decisions in Elk and Wong Kim Ark aren't in conflict is lying or just ignorant. I won't try to judge this commentator as to which of the two he falls under. ]
March 14, 2009 at 2:56 am
[Ed. Please don't use bold print. That is reserved for the editor's comments.]
Re RJ’s comments.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson actually wrote:
Source:
Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21 October 1, 1783 - October 31, 1784
Thomas Jefferson’s Notes
(emphasis added)
Jefferson was commenting on the question of whether the American-born son of a British subject retained rights as a citizen (or subject) of England — and his answer was that the son did not; it is clear from these notes that Jefferson was taking the view that the son took his citizenship from place of birth, NOT from the father.
[Ed. Not exactly. The child would be a natural born "subject", not citizen. Great Britain has both subjects and citizens... to be a GB citizen holds more rights than that of a subject... Furthermore, the US isn't a monarchy and a "natural born subject" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen". Jefferson also said above:
Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?
Natural subjects can inherit--Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character--every man must be the one or the other of these.
And this is further proof that a dual national at birth cannot be a "natural born citizen" for there is, as Jefferson implies, something very unnatural as to citizenship if such is split... ]
I don’t know where RJ’s other quote came from — but the above is what I found with a search of this site: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
March 14, 2009 at 7:52 am
In case you haven’t already seen this:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd436.htm
[Ed. Devvy is doing a good job.
While I have "spoke highly" of the comprehensive nature of the Apuzzo complaint in that it includes as its main point the British birth status of Obama, the case has virtually no chance of succeeding because of the separation of powers issue. The court petitioned has no power to force Congress on the eligibility issue.]
Also, she mentions that the QW has been done successfully before without the consent of the AG or US Att… this was true in the lower courts as to the Newman case, but the decisions was reversed by SCOTUS. I don’t know if it’s actually been done before without such consent. ]
March 14, 2009 at 9:36 am
Leo
I placed your blog in my favorites.Today when i tried to go to your blog it said 404 error.Have you had anyone besides me having trouble getting into your blog? Thanks
[Ed. Yes. This blog has been censored and its contents removed from more message boards than I can keep track of. This fascist activity inspires me in such a pure way. When you suspect the overarching stench of fascism creeping into the media and Government it's a somewhat paranoid feeling. But when you publish a blog about genuine legal issues and find those messages being censored again and again... fears that one is just paranoid give way to facts of being censored.
The people doing the censoring are afraid of the law. The fear has shifted from me to them. I know the law. They know I know the law inside out, as good as or better than any Justice of the US Supreme Court. And it's become clear to the powers that be this blog educates people and makes lights go on. Those censoring this blog (whoever they are) do not want lights going on. They want to dim the lights on the law. Nothing could inspire me more. God knows I want to drop all of this to write songs, play poker, chess and golf... They are proving themselves terrible at judging what motivates this blog. If they would just play fair, I'd honestly be less motivated. It's the unfairness of being censored repeatedly that motivates me more than anything. I'm from Queens. Just like "My Counsin Vinny", arguing is in my blood.
So, in the words of Marvin, "Let's Get It on". ]
March 14, 2009 at 11:07 am
Thanks for you’re involvement in this action and hope the right thing is accomplished. I’ve had the same concerns for the active military people that have had their personal information exposed for it would seem no reason except publicity.
I have a different question that I’ve not seen presented before. When McClain chose Gov. Palin as a running mate, it got me active in his campaign. I had been a “None of the Above” before that. I contributed a couple of hundred dollars to his campaign and some time also. Now it looks to me that I was duped by his campaign, by not being even qualified to even run for President as a natural born citizen. Hopefully, I’m not the only contributor to feel defrauded, as I would also feel that Clinton and even Obama supporters might feel too. It would seem to me that every person that helped their favorite campaign has been defrauded of the time and funds.
Anyway, my question is why a Class Action lawsuit could or could not be successfully presented. Both candidates would seem to not qualify for President by the available facts and isn’t the civil rule a preponderance of evidence? We pretty well know McCain didn’t qualify and Obama’s qualifications couldn’t be much less suspect. I just feel that I am among millions of people that were swindled into something in a class of a ponzi scheme.
Then again, I’m one of the crazies that think… [Ed. snip... no way man. As to your issue above, theoretically you'd hav to prove that both McCain and Oabam knew they weren't qualified. It's hard to prove that since the issue hasn't been decided in a court.]
Thanks again and may success be yours.
March 14, 2009 at 11:09 am
What Is Use, Worth, Or Purpose Of “Interpret” Word?
(Apollonian, 14 Mar 09)
I thank u very much for ur kind answer to my posting (above, Mar 13, 12:28 pm), but I’m still troubled by ur treatment, as ur use of word, “interpret.” Now look, where, by what reference u can possibly give, does it require “judges” only are allowed to “interpret” clauses of the US Constitution whereas citizens are not?
Why can’t any citizen or juror observe, understand, and apply the law?–what makes “judges” special by ur understanding?–and what references can u give for ur own holding?
I submit the “interpret” word is by itself a most unfortunate, gross subversion and subterfuge; no one is supposed to “interpret” the law–one is simply required to observe and apply such law, that’s all. For a law which can be “interpreted” is a failure of confusion right at the beginning. Isn’t this “interpret” word itself just a gross and counter-productive travesty in itself? Thanks again for ur attn and advice. Apollonian
[Ed. Interpret what you like. In fact, just go to SCOTUS and tell them you're moving in. They seem to be acting very strange lately. They may just give you a bed and a set of legal texts and court reporters. There is no separation of powers. What the hell was I thinking? I don't know where I ever got the impression the judicial branch was charged with intepreting the laws. What planet am I on?]
March 14, 2009 at 11:21 am
A correction to a typo. The letter, as written, states:
At his web site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called “factcheck.org”.
In actuality, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Life Birth, not a Certificate of Live Birth.
A question: If Holder or Taylor were to pursue a Quo Warranto action, what, if anything, would ensure that both sides of the “natural born citizenship” issue are presented fairly, accurately and competently?
Thanks for your outstanding effort.
- Steve
[Ed. Your prayers. The will of God or lack thereof. I believe the Lord may have already judged this nation. Pray hard. Perhaps God will send help?]
March 14, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Regarding your comment in the post by “stand up and fight” (03-14-09):
This behavior (censorship) is mirrored when you confront them directly with the issue, in writing or face to face. A good friend of mine believed that Obama’s eligibility issue was only about the birth certificate and other records, and he imho rightfully dismissed all of these claims. But when I told him about the core issue (nbc, legal matter of 1st impression), he simply grew silent and didn’t mention it again in our correspondence—instead he was somehow trying to sweep it under the rug by emphatically focusing only on Obama’s historic victory from that point on.
His silence is very telling, and it’s not much different from the enforced public silence on those message boards with regard to your blog and research. People don’t want to hear facts and founded arguments. They prefer wonderland, where they can dream a little longer about that historic victory, and where the BC/COLB-theories fit right in—as yet another fairy tale from wonderland. I wonder… are you also getting censored by some BC/COLB fringe sites? (Wouldn’t surprise me, actually.)
[Ed. Not only am I getting censored. But the law is getting censored. There's basically a whole donation based industry thriving on fear of Obama as tothe eligibility law suits, yet not one of the attorneys involved wants to talk about the lone court that has jurisdiction to hear a case like this. They won't discuss or use in their suits the only statute which Constitutionally provides the means by which an alleged usurper is dealt with. The DC Code uses the word "usurper" as to all US public offices in DC. But none of these attorney wants to go there and ask for the jury trial this statute allows for. Bizaro.]
March 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“The fight to use every possible legal device you can think of other than the statute enacted specifically to challenge that somebody may be a usurper? A warrior chooses his battleground with great care. He chooses someplace he has some chance of winning. He doesn’t fight on enemy turf if he has a better option.”
This is exactly why novice chess players lose against an experienced player. Novices will try every tactic and strategy they can think of except the one that will actually bring about victory unless their opponent is even more incompetent.
March 14, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Leo,
Thank you from a faithful reader. Yes, those who belong to the Lord are commanded to have a zeal for righteousness; not arrogance but a zeal for the precepts and truths of the One Triune God. We understand. And those of us who love our Lord also understand that it is from these immutable truths that we have been handed down the greatest body of law ever known to mankind, imperfect yes, but blessed by a holy God as we seek to bless and glorify Him. May the Lord continue to be your guide in all love and humility, to keep you and sanctify you for the day of perfection.
Soli Deo Gloria
March 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm
a large box of paperwork was delivered to justice roberts in idaho yesterday at a public meeting which he said he would read - if he looks at this material how does it influence his judgement and the chances for qw in dc ?? - phil stone
[Ed. SCOTUS justices are now accepting documents and making judgments on cases from lecture questions at public events. And this is supposed to be comforting? Totally bizaro situations developing tells me people are getting nervous. I'm telling you right now. Obama will never be removed by SCOTUS. He will never be removed. Period. But if you want to see a trial on thie issues with a jury and sworn testimony, then you have to use the DC Code statute. Even if, in that court, he found to be ineligible, SCOTUS will reverse. I believe that with every fiber of being. Obama has protection. "He's a friend of ours."]
March 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Another commenter in another blog pointed out that Hoover’s VP, Charles Curtis, had a nbc father, but a mother who was 3/4ths American Indian.
[Ed. Been through this issue comprehensively. His Mother was actually just less than 1/2 Indian and more than 1/2 French and so when she married his father, a US citizen in 1860, the 1885 act which granted US Citizenship to all foreign women who married US Citizens made her a Citizen before he was born.]
Curthis inherited a tribal “allotment” at age 3 when his mother died and he was an afficial Kaw tribal member off and on during his life. Curthis, per Wiki, was born in North Topeka KS off of the reservation and before Kansas was a state.
[Ed. Wiki has the facts wrong as to her blood being 3/4 Indian.]
When Judge Gray in Elk v. Wikins said “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States” are not natural born citizens, this would possibly apply to Charles Curtis depending on whether Curtis’ maternal-derived Indian identity as a Kaw would have made him an Indian.
March 14, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Leo,
It is obvious that Obama, if he has to, will insist that Wong makes him legal, and common law is the basis of the term NBC. The Blog that you said cannot be taken seriously from a few comments ago is a pretty extensive and professional looking attempt to discredit your work done by some of the Web Minions. It also lists this little nugget of half truth:
“§ 468a. Writs of quo warranto in the District Courts. The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States.”
[Ed. This is what Im talking about with that blog being just awful as a genuine legal analysis site. He fails to tell you that the staute this section 468 was discussing was repealed and the analysis that the stutute in QW couldnt be used to try a President's title to office only extended to the repealed statute that dealt with 14th amendment votive rights. This has nothing to do with the DC District Code. Nada. But it's sexier to BS about with cavalier quotes. It's a clever lie. But I exposed it before and again here. ]
I assume that this part of the law is talking about District courts of the many STATES and the D of C is not a state.
It is amzing how all of those that argue for Obama are in love with British Common Law, when that is precisely the tyranny that the Original Citizens were escaping.
[Ed. That's an interesting point you make. Not to mention that Scalia said the common law was dead a few months ago.]
To think that …”and subject to the jurisdiction…” only applies to Indians not taxed and Diplomats is laughable. “AND SUBJECT” is a requirement of the objects (those Born and Naturalized), otherwise it is floating by itself. “AND” connects it to the phrase before the comma. If the jurisdictional phrase only applies to Indians, then why is Citizen #1 in USC 8-1401: “Those Born and Subjcct to the Jurisdiction of the US.”?
Thanks alot for coming on Joyce Kaufman’s show. She was brave to have you on, since so many supposed “journalists” refuse to even investigate the issue.
[Ed. She was brave to have me on. She is a patriot. ]
March 14, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Thanks Leo. I’m inspired by your energy and legal knowledge.
I’m a senior citizen and this is the first time in my life where Americans doubt the legitimacy and honesty of our government.
It’s just a couple of steps from there to chaos.
I’m in Congressman Bill Posey’s district and have written him several times on this issue. H.R.1503 is just a start, I hope.
[Ed. If they can ask for the BC and documents in 2012 when he will still be President, they can ask for them now. But they won't. 1503 is not a start, it's a dog and pony show. This will never happen again. And by 2012, I'm wondering seriously whether there will be a USA...]
Thanks again.
Guy4013
March 14, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Leo, within the past week Orly Taitz has spoken, face to face, with both Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts….She informed Justice Roberts of questionable actions on the part of SC clerk, Danny Bickel (sp)….Have you informed them of the underhanded actions of this clerk in regards to your’s and Cort’s cases?…..That dude needs to at least lose his job.
[Ed. They know. Anybody who thinks SCOTUS didn't know about these cases is delusional. I'm just sayin'.]
March 14, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Leo,
Can you tell us more about the Charles Curtis case. From what I read he was born in an area set apart for “half-breeds” across from (off) the actual reservation. KS. did not become a state until 1 year after he was born. Was this an oversight, or were Territories considered the US? I remember there was a question about Goldwater being born in AZ. Territory before it was a state (although, of course he was not elected).
[Ed. United States territory is any extent of region under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States.]
March 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I was curious about a question about the process should the QW ever be initiated.
Would not the discovery phase proceed a jury selection phase of any trial?
Could not the actual outcome be decided by the pretrial motions regarding admissions and suppression of subpoenas for evidence?
Once actual evidence in record form was compelled, and received, it may become obvious that
A) it is solely an nbc issue or
B)one or more of the theories are facts.
Assuming you are correct A) (that he was born on American soil) and never lost his eligibility for any other reason other than dual citizenship than would it not be only for SCOTUS to say what nbc means.
[Ed. No. The DC District Court can interpret the words "natural born citizen" and if it is appealed SCOTUS can review it. No need to go to them first.]
Should the “B” scenario happen, would not that become apparent pretrial rather than during trial? Making the whole question of jury practically irrelevant? Causing Obama to give it all up?
[Ed. I don't see that happening. Do you?]
March 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Leo - You are a true patriot and deserving of a place in history equal to our founding fathers. May God bless you and keep you safe.
In reference to Rebecca’s comment about HB 1503, I suspect this is perhaps a response to the pressure we here in Florida have been putting on our Secretary of State since 2/3/9 and our letter of 3/1/9 to Attorney General McCollum requesting his legal opinion as to precisely “who” in my Florida Government has the responsibility to verify candidate eligibility before any name can be placed upon the next election ballot in 2012, or corrective action, if needed. Although I have not communicated with any of my DC folks I have copied my state folks and they all eat out of the same trough. I will be in communication with all of our DC folks as quickly as possible in follow up to your comments.
One of the primary benefits of the denial of due process “loophole” approach is that it focuses directly upon the system. Obama is merely the subject and only LIAR that has ever had the balls to exploit the loophole. The media will have a difficult time talking about the bill without talking about WHY we need it.
The reason I could not get through with THE OBAMA SECRECY LOOPHOLE article is because it includes a copy of my letter of 3/1/9 to AG McCollum which I had copied to you and is now causing wordpress to see it as duplicate junk. I would still like to get it to you for your comment but I could only do it in parts, leaving the letter out and you putting it back in, if, you chose to publish it. As a layman it is written in layman understandable language. Keep up the good work and may God keep you safe.
[Ed. Go ahead and get it over to me in parts if you like.]
March 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm
In the spirit of free speach and common decency, I am thankful for mavericks like you. I pray you reveal the fraudulent acts of the persons who put this man in the presidency. You are the chosen one to do just that…many thanks to you. I hope there are more like you to carry on the battle for the truth…
March 14, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Leo,
Many have argued that if Obama is ultimately determined to be ineligible by the SCOTUS that there is sufficient legal basis to reverse any bills that he signed into law or executive orders that he issued. I haven’t heard any definitive statements on the matter.
My question for you is, if Ginsburg steps down and Obama appoints a new justice, will the appointment stand should Obama be found ineligible?
[ed. I assume the election would be void and he would not be recorded as ever "having been" President as with Galatin and Shields in the Senate.]
It just occurred to me in writing this post how calculated this subterfuge may really be … the SCOTUS rules 5-4 that Obama is a natural born citizen with the deciding vote being Ginsburg’s replacement. It’s right out of a John Grisham novel: The Appeal.
~BuckeyeTexan
March 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Leo!
Sadly most people don’t realize that even if Obama is removed it won’t matter.Obama is merely a front man for the powers that be.They will replace Obama if they have to with someone else and continue with their planned agenda.I wish i could believe otherwise but reality won’t let me.
[Ed. I agree. I didn't agree when I first started my case, but I've become as jaded as Aerosmith over this shebango. I'm only interested in seeing the title to office settled now because keeping it unsettled seems like the plan. I want that plan derailed.]
March 14, 2009 at 7:15 pm
THE OBAMA SECRECY LOOPHOLE
By focusing upon correcting the election process that has allowed Obama to be declared “eligible” while totally sealing his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from all voters, including his own party officials and the military officers under his command is the most efficient way to get to and expose Obama‘s Achilles Heal. This secrecy is a fundamental issue and our Florida Supreme Court gave us good clarification dealing with this issue back in in 2000.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. 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. 98, 104 (2000).
Fundamental is due process. A state legislature can not amend article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires a candidate to be a Natural Born Citizen, by transferring this responsibility to verify exclusively over to a private party without government oversight. That is precisely what has happened. This is a clear denial of due process for us voters.
Obama’s demand for secrecy is his Achilles heal which can be exploited without making personal accusatory charges by asking instead a simple question. Why has Obama spent over $800,000 on lawyers to keep hidden important factors in his historical past? What is he hiding?
Take a lesson from the democrats and their partners, the mainstream media. Simply quote what someone else has charged and then ask the questions “what is he hiding and why” over and over again. The best defense is a good offense.
It is evident Obama is hiding something seriously critical to his qualification to be president. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries a passport issued by a foreign country since he stated in his book that he traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia, before he ever obtained a US passport. No one in the mainstream media, not even our conservative talk radio hosts will openly discuss or challenge this secrecy.
There is another and better way to attack this problem which is to focus our attention on making sure the Obama Secrecy Loophole is plugged before the 2012 election. The following is my second letter to Attorney General McCollum expressing my layman’s explanation of the problem and request for corrective action. Once we get a legal opinion from the AG we will know what our next step will be but it is abundantly clear to me that this is a gross denial of due process to the voters of Florida. The beauty of this approach is we don’t have to make egregious charges against Obama. The issue is the denial of due process in the system. Obama is merely the subject that has taken advantage of and exposed the loophole. The media will be more inclined to report on this story. What we need now is to spread this AG Legal Opinion approach and get our conservative legislators and voters into the informational support game. Any mention in this regard will be greatly appreciated.
March 8, 09
[Ed. snipped private info]
Attorney General Bill McCollum
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, Fla. 32399-1050
Dear Attorney General McCollum;
Subject - The Obama Secrecy Loophole.
Please accept this posting as a supplement to my letter to you dated 3/1/09 requesting an official legal opinion and corrective action, if necessary, to resolve this crucial issue before the next presidential election.
For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, including his own party officials and especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country since he traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia before ever obtaining a US passport.
The position we find ourselves in today, although much more critical, is almost identical to the position we found ourselves in back in the 80’s when the courts began issuing summary judgments that The Marketable Record Title Act did apply to our public sovereignty lands because no one represented the public during the following two year saving period to record and preserve the publics claim. The facts were that the title to the publics freshwater sovereignty lands were in the hands of the state legislature when the act was set into law but they recorded nothing to save and preserve the public interest. This was a clear denial of due process for the public and the Florida Supreme Court eventually decided all three questions submitted to them in our favor.
Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various Presidential candidates the electors had standing and during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates and electors Democrat, Republican and Independent alike were in attendance and they could even make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the electoral college vote, not after and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.
Our system today is completely backwards and a denial of due process to the voters. The entire vetting process of the candidates US Constitutional eligibility has been totally turned over to the private political parties, the Secretary of State blindly accepts the private party selection, ballots are printed and elections are held, the votes counted, the electors are already committed as to whom they must vote, state certifications are made and sent to the electoral college, the official votes are counted and only then, after the official electoral votes have been counted, does an elector have the opportunity to even raise an eligibility question and that must be done in writing. (and its in question whether this opportunity was even allowed in the 08 election)
Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify eligibility prior to the election as did the electors under the original system. According to the response I received from my letter of 2/3/09 our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to defend the US Constitution, states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political parties (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if a citizen chooses to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is the citizens responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so.
This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we are forced to vote for candidates that no Government Official has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by the states refusal to factually verify, on behalf of the public and before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution. This unconstitutional loophole has permitted a likely Usurper to become President and Commander in Chief of our military forces.
Regardless of what Fla. Statute Chapter 103 states, somebody in my Florida Government has the responsibility to carry out his oath of office to defend the US Constitution and factually verify the candidates are eligible before any name is placed upon the next presidential ballot. The US Constitution can not be effectively amended by a state legislature by simply transferring the total vetting responsibility of a Presidential candidate over to a private group.
Sometimes, like the IRS Code, Election Codes get so complicated and bogged down one looses sight of simple due process reality. The Obama secrecy loophole must be plugged and I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
Robert Quinn
Fellow Patriots -
The solution is simple in my opinion. All the Secretaries of State need do is, at application time, simply ask the candidates/ parties to produce the proving documents. He certainly has US Constitutional backing to do that and if they refuse, all the secretary needs to do is issue a press release to that fact. Problem solved. Let the party sue if they think they can stand the publicity. I don’t think so. If our Secretary of State Browning had been a true patriot and not blinded by political correctness, white guilt and willful ignorance, Obama would not be our USURPER PRESIDENT today.
There is nothing more important than resolving this issue.
March 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm
To the military members out there who believe in their sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America….I, as do most most Americans, hope you will uphold that oath. America has depended on you for 232 years…it will depend on you tomorrow.
March 14, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Leo,
Thank you so much for all you are doing. Your site is always full of good, factual information and is understandable to those who do not know much about the law. All the ones running in circles wondering what we should do should make this their first stop for their answer.
I look forward to more in the future.
March 14, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Orly Taitz is doing much more harm than good to your cause and the cause of others who really believe in this whole thing. I have no idea, perhaps she really is a patriot, but she is not very knowledgeable about US Law. She is a [---- ed.] I have investigated both of these incidents with the SC Justices and they simply did not happen as she reports. Justice Roberts did not say he would read anything. She stood up and as soon as she identified herself there was audible laughter in the room. He knew who she was and quickly dismissed her. She had a big bunch of crap with her and in order to get rid of her quickly, he told her to give them to whomever it was that was with him. That was the end of it. No other words were exchanged.
It was exactly the same thing with Scalia. If you notice when she reports something she often says things like “I had the feeling” or “it seemed”…
The people that are really serious about this, and I personally think it is a waste of time and money, but if you are serious, put your money with someone like Leo who actually puts some thought into it and knows the law. Orly Taitz and her tin hat public appearances are not helping this cause at all. I bet the Democrats love it.
March 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Oh, and before I forget (AGAIN)… Leo, THANK YOU for your hard work, your honesty, your knowledge of the legal system (which in itself you deserve a lifetime achievement award), your integrity, your selflessness for putting yourself in harms way…you are a TRUE PATRIOT. May God be with you and with this Great Nation. We are on the edge of what was and what may be, and you are there…on that edge, trying to make sure we are aware of the dangers of allowing things to tip the wrong way.
Hey Paisan, it took an Italian to discover this great land…it may just take the same to preserve it. Cent Anni…..
March 14, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Senate Judiciary Commitee Chairman Patrick Leahy questioning Micheal Chertoff, Homeland Secretary, who was charged with enforcing federal immigration laws:
You’re a former federal judge,” he said to Chertoff. “You’re the head of the agency that executes federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind? I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he’s constitutionally eligible to become president?”
Chertoff kept his answer brief: “My assumption and my understanding,” he said, “is that if you were born of American parents, you are a natural-born American citizen.”
So rlqretired, not only do you have your “official government determination” from a “federal official” we ALL know that this is the correct reading of Natural Born Citizen.
This is testimony before the US Senate, YET it like the people of this country is being ignored….why?
AND this OFFICIAL was a judge, and the head of the Senate Judiciary asked the question, and agreed with the answer he was provided…no its not the SCOTUS, but why does the main stream media and everyone else seem to ignore this evidence and “official federal opinion”?
March 14, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Sweet letter.Even the” in betweens” that I’ll always cherish,my friend.Leo,you are a Constitutional expert.So,all this talk about getting high powered attorneys and self-proclaimed experts on this issue is hot air.They don’t even have the guts to critique your work.That is done by the bloggers spinning wheels.If they haven’t stepped up to the plate now,they must be relegated to designator hitter status,and never used.I wouldn’t trust them,and we don’t need them.The mystery man will only be removed if it is part of the overall plan to destroy this erstwhile great nation,which is taking place anyway.What you are doing is for the record.And we all will have to give an account at the Great White Throne Judgment if not washed on the saving blood of Jesus Christ.One of those Eastern Establishment college educated experts has written a column asking for money.You know,there is no paypal button like the rest of the hari kari lawyers,as he shares space on the website.It’s pathetic and disgusting.Go ahead and toss the tomatoes at me,but I respect Leo far more than any of these carnival barkers.Keep up the good work,brother…… Here’s the link to the expert’s column— http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin194.htm The years it would take to do what he suggests will be an exercise in futility,as the nation will be gone by then………. Jim
March 14, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Leo, you da man!!! A born teacher!
Above you said:
[Ed. Not only am I getting censored. But the law is getting censored. There's basically a whole donation based industry thriving on fear of Obama as to the eligibility law suits, yet not one of the attorneys involved wants to talk about the lone court that has jurisdiction to hear a case like this. They won't discuss or use in their suits the only statute which Constitutionally provides the means by which an alleged usurper is dealt with. The DC Code uses the word "usurper" as to all US public offices in DC. But none of these attorney wants to go there and ask for the jury trial this statute allows for. Bizaro.]
So, with all the “activity” which is really NO activity, we are supposed to be “pleased and cheered” with all the lawsuits going on, eh??? When all that is happening is time and money being wasted, cuz if the correct proceedure isn’t going to be followed, then NOTHING is going to happen!
Are these ALL Obots???? Is this what they want???
Yes, I agree that if it wasn’t Obama, it would be someone else following the “script”. Sigh…
I’m praying hard for your and Taylor’s safety.
March 14, 2009 at 11:50 pm
@Shawn (comment 5812): The Leahy/Chertoff exchange is pretty notorious now, but it doesn’t mean anything, not only because S.Res 511 is just a legally non-binding opinion, but also because that exchange is not about Obama, but McCain, i.e. it refers to the birth status of US citizens born abroad—or in this case on a US military base (which is factually wrong anyway in McCain’s case, who was born in Colon, Republic of Panama, not at Coco Solo).
Everyone—even the obots—agree that a person born on US soil of two US citizen parents is a natural born citizen. However, what they are trying to achieve here (and elsewhere) is to read the term NBC in a more liberal way, extend it beyond the conservative reading based on the Framers’ interpretation. One camp (supporting Obama) is trying to extend the Framers’ interpretation by saying that people born on US soil of foreign parents or only one US citizen parent, i.e. native born citizens/14th Amendment citizens, are NBCs.
[Ed. A good comment thus far, but I have to pop in here. I'm not convinced that Obama is a "14th Amendment citizen," but rather he may be a citizen by statute like McCain. I don't think Wong Kim Ark applies to him. This will be the topic of a forthcoming extensive blog post.]
The other camp (McCain) voicing their opinion in S.Res 511 state that persons born outside of US jurisdiction are also NBCs, if both parents are US citizens—and this against better knowledge, because the change in the Naturalization Act of 1795 vs. the one of 1790 clearly implies that Congress didn’t regard these citizens as natural born.
On the surface Leahy/Chertoff’s exchange may seem incriminating with regard to Obama’s citizenship status at birth, but they’re only talking about McCain here. They are not ruling out the other camp’s opinion that a native born citizen like Obama is also natural born, no matter who his/her parents are.
[Ed. That takes a huge assumption on your part. They could have said it the way you have stated, but they didn't. I understand your point. It's your "certainty" I take issue with.]
They’re just one of the factions in wonderland that are trying to fray the originally strict NBC interpretation in two additional directions. They’re just part of the “cult”, as Mr. Donofrio has rightfully pointed out so often. If they were right, then every US citizen would be natural born except those who are naturalized—even citizens like McCain, which is kinda preposterous, if you ask me.
[Ed. McCain wasn't naturalized. He was a citizen "at birth" by statute. But for the statue, he would have needed to be naturalized. Since he needed the statute, he isn't a natural born citizen.]
March 14, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Magnicent job at plumbing the depths of the Constitution and surrounding Amendments and precedent setting cases.Shrewd writing in that letter.I love it.Thank you Leo.You are in my prayers.We are steamrolling into a Fascist New World Order,and your goal of derailing part of their plan is commendable.The back up freight train will roll on,but we must not tie ourselves to the tracks and commit national suicide.I’m pleasntly surprised at the worm turning over the glorification of [ed.]> “other” lawyers. [Ed. snip comment about other lawyers. See my latest blog, Im restricting all future comments about other lawyers, but thank you for the compliment.] I second the comment on you being a great teacher.Thanks again. p.s. It wasn’t Columbus,it was me.I had maps from the hidden elite.
March 15, 2009 at 2:45 am
Leo, that is a wonderful letter that you wrote. I hope it gets results.
I was reading about how to impeach a President, and this website said that the citizens could impeach one. How does that work?
It said that you have to go through the House Judiciary Committee.
[Ed. Ihave no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to post more.]
March 15, 2009 at 7:14 am
All I would say is thank you for everything you do for us.
March 15, 2009 at 9:20 am
@Leo Donofrio: Thank you for your comments. Some notes.
(1) You’re right. I second that Obama is probably not even a 14th Amendment citizen. I remember that there was a comment by 14A-Framer (Bingham?), who said that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof [= the U.S.]” in the Amendment was supposed to mean *exclusively* subjected to US jurisdiction. Since Obama’s status was also governed by the British Crown, he wouldn’t be a 14A-citizen after all, which would make him a citizen by statute (USC §1401). But I’m looking forward to your new article. You probably have a lot of additional evidence up your sleeve.
Only one question concerning 14A: If Bingham is right and 14A born citizens have to be under exclusive US jurisdiction, doesn’t this then also mean that 14A born citizens *are* in fact natural born citizens in the Framer’s interpretation?
[Ed. Not necessarily. See my pending blog on this.]
(2) You’re correct that the Senators didn’t mention Obama’s status in S.Res 511. But my certainty is also based on other circumstances: Since Congress didn’t challenge Obama when they had the chance (in January 09), and judging from many of their (mostly layman) comments in letters to concerned citizens, wouldn’t it be safe to say that they find a native born citizen like Obama to be natural born, just as they found McCain to be natural born in S.Res 511? Of course, like S.Res 511 it’s just their opinion.
[Ed. The 511 comments could have just been honesty by accident when they worded the Resolution as they did, a Freudian slip if you will.]
(3) Your last comment is correct, but I meant the same—only the word order of my sentence was misleading. McCain wasn’t naturalized. If I’m not mistaken, the statute USC 1403 pertaining to the former no man’s land Panama canal zone (cf. Chin’s essay and the Insular-Cases-problem) only retroactively declared him a born citizen of the US. But even if he had been born in Panama (and not in the Canal Zone), he wouldn’t be natural born.
[Ed. You raise a very good point most people missed. At the time of John McCain's birth, no statute made him a citizen. And the 14th Amendment didn't make him a citizen either because he wasn't born in the US or naturalized here. The Panama Canal Zone Act wasn't enacted until 1937, so even though it applied retroactively, at the time of McCain's birth in 1936, McCain was not a US citizen at all when he was born. So he couldn't have been a "natural born" citizen under any circumstances even if he was born in Coco Solo (and the evidence strongly suggests he wasn't). McCain didn't become a US citizen until 1937. Having been born in 1936 there's no possible way he could have been a natural born citizen.
Thanks for your post. You've got me thinking about this Senate resolution again...be back at you later after I read 511 again.]
March 15, 2009 at 11:26 am
Leo,
The Chertoff/ Leahy exchange that is discussed above I guess could be construed as speaking about being a NBC in general (born of citizen parents) or it could be in relation to USC 8-1401 C. US CODE 8 1401, which is titled “Nationals and Citizens of the US at Birth” is where those that defend the NBC status of President Obama frame the question with “who, in other words is a US citizen at birth” to define NBC. Now, we know that the question should be framed as “whom is a US Citizen at birth, and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other foreign power”. This code also gives citizenship at birth to those born in “outlying” areas of the US to ONE US citizen parent, so how can that Possibly be a NBC? My point is that USC 8- 1401 examples cannot possibly be NBC, and yet USC 8-1401(A ) IS a Natural Born Citizen.
[Ed. The statute doesn't say that and neither does the 14th Amendment. Both use the word "citizen" whereas A1 S2 C5 uses the term "natural born citzen".]
In other words USC 8-1401( A) should not be in the Code, since this person would not need Statute to determine US Citizenship.
[Ed. It's redundant. Ever do a thorough examination fo the IRS Code and the US Code Annotated? Redundancy is a second language to Government. It doesn't mean anything to the nbc issue.]
This USC 8 is a blatent attempt to water down the meaning of NBC by statute and not amendment (or to align Gray’s definition of Jurisdiction with the 14A).
Horace Gray’s muddying of the Jurisdictional clause has blurred the meaning of NBC for 100 years, and it is even written into the USCode that the jurisdictional phrase is exclusionary of Indians (not taxed) and diplomats, rather than inclusionary of those Born and Naturallized.
Of course testimony from Resolution is sufficiently ambiguous so as not to damage the claim of Obama’s NBC status, as is Sen. McClaskey’s attempt to legislate it’s meaning.
[ed. I disagree. More on that soon.]
Maybe the SCOTUS in your case realized the implications of changing USCode, because to rule in your favor would have to change the Stare Decisis of Wong meaning of the Jurisdictional clause.
[Ed. No stare decisis exists as to Wong and Obama. Wong doesn't contain in its holding that Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born citizen" it only states the definition of "citizen". I don't think Gray could have gotten a majority of the Court to agree with him that Wong Kim Ark himself could be President. That would have been a pretty hard sell in 1898. The State Department didn't even want to give him a passport, you think they were going to say he or somebody like him was qualified to be President? I don't and that's why the holding doesn't hold that he is a "natural born citizen" in my opinion. More on this coming soon too.]
Congress would be forced to unravel a large portion of the Immigration and naturalization Law, especially USC 8- 1401.
Question: If a ruling was made that NBC required 2 Citizen Parents, and thus reaffirmed the original meaning of the jurisdictional phrase, would those born to 2 non Citizen parents in the US need to be naturalized?
[Ed. You keep mixing up "nbc" with citizen. Read your Constitution. It makes reference to "citizen" qualification at various points but it only refers to nbc once. If you change the word to "citizen" in your question, then the child would have to be naturalized if he didn't get citizenship by statue via his mother... there are statutes which grant US citizenship to children born of US citizen mothers even when the father is not a US citizen.]
If there was one citizen parent i think that the child would assume the citizenship of the US by affirmation at the age of consent (explicitly if living in a foreign country, or Implicitly, if living in the US, by not affirming the competing Citizenship).
March 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I have updated the letter as of March 15, 2009 to include reference to The Globe coverage of the issue.
March 15, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Dear Leo,
I appreciate your intentions to work ’solo’ and maintain the pure integrity of your pursuits.
Can you assure us, we who so sincerely want to believe the Constitution can be upheld when the proper course is determined, that you intend to remain intimately involved in the pursuit of Quo Warranto through the US District Court of the District of Columbia? And, that if your open letter to Holder and Taylor is ignored you will not abandon the fight?
I know additional blogs will be forthcoming from you on this site, but I’m sure I am not the only one who fears that without your involvement and de facto leadership all is already lost.
I am not suggesting that you divulge your plans to the enemy, but can you assure us you are working on a course of action?
[Ed. No. I can assure you if the US Attorney and the AG fail to get involved that I will be done with this. I have no intention of filing any other law suits on this issue. I've only got involved this time to educate as to the laws and to ask the proper officials to get involved via quo warranto. The US has neglected to be a nation of laws because the people continue to elect to office people who aren't interested in preserving our Constitutional Republic.
The people have allowed wars which are not legal and a plethora of other Constitutionally offensive legislation to be passed. The people have failed to stop the looting of our treasury via bail outs as we pay the high end bonuses to rich Wall Street failures out of the pockets of working mothers and fathers.
Take from the poor and give to the rich. See "AIG pays $450 million in bonuses after bailout".
Corporate fascism. Yet where is the leadership on this? It's busy selling out the nation tuned into American Idol and various nauseating reality shows. I'm starting to believe that this country deserves what it gets for its apathy and petty infighting and for giving its power away to the RNC and the DNC, two organizations I couldn't have more disdain for in ten lifetimes. Apathy is its own reward.
"We only get what we will settle for" (lyrics by Oasis)
My conscience is clear that I've done all I can at this point to be a good citizen on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may. This is my last stand. Good luck America. We're gonna need it. ]
March 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Very fine work, sir. Thank you.
Bob Quigley
March 15, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Leo, Leo, Leo..I am so happy you have jumped into the fray again, but why are you once again saying this is your last stand.
[Ed. I don't believe quo warranto has any chance unless it's brought by US Attorney Taylor or AG Holder.]
[Ed. snipped... see latest blog]
Once again, glad you are back. Thanks.
March 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I have posted a call to action alert on our website, http://www.foundingfatherscry.com. Thank you for the information, and thanks for your continuing support of our Constitution.
March 16, 2009 at 1:14 am
McCain and SRS 511 legal investigation.
This was done by “experts” and is nothing more than a sham to fool the public. I am not an atty. and I couldn’t believe my eyes. The Investigation was requested by Senator Spector.
March 19, 2008.
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s] ….. shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. §1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, §1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.”Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
Senator McCain’s status as a “natural born” citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were “natural-born Subjects” were also “natural-born Subjects ….. to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.” British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word “citizen” for “subject” to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were “natural born” citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655-66. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. *.*.* ”) (emphases added). Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed “natural born subjects.” See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.*.*.* ”).
There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, “[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.” 0′Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986). Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See, e.g., The President–Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907) (recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama “imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]”); cc Pub. L. No. 62-337, §1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that “the use, occupancy, or control” of the Canal Zone had been “granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama”). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
Senator McCain’s candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of “natural born Citizen,” but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about “Foreigners” attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical “Foreigner” who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.
Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.
LAURENCE H. TRIBE.
THEODORE B. OLSON.
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: *** Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.
[Ed. There's so much crap in the Senate's investigation. The most blatant load is that a law passed in 1937 could retroactively effect the "natural born" status of somebody born in 1936. McCain was a citizen by statute by an act of 1934... McCain was not a natural born citizen.]
March 16, 2009 at 11:22 am
Leo,
I have followed your expertise about our beloved Constitution with much intrique. I believe that you are a one of kind thinker, and I agree that many of your views and writings deserve a place within the same halls of US History as the original framers of the US Constitution. Or, at the very least you should be recognized as this nations Favored Son.
For the above reasons I hope that I am woefully wrong, but I believe that even after all your exquisit work to the contrary, the PTB will not allow any amount of Constitutional research, solid logic, or law stand in the way of the fact that (as they believe) history was finally made by the election of the first ‘Black American’. I always thought that we were all just plain Americans, but our government has decided that it’s best if we seperate ourselves by nationality, I guess. Not!
I firmly believe that this travesty is going to be left to be decided in the streets and hedgerows of this great nation. But, before what I preceive actually becomes reality, I just wanted to say thank you for all that you have tried to do for us, and US as a whole. You have preformed your duty to your country with diligence, and honor. However, I believe that the time swiftly approaches, that the persons that do not posess the same qualities, and ability to express themselves as exquisitly as yourself, to do what it is that they do best. So, my friend, please cherish, and keep these notes of thanks close within your heart, for the time will arrive that some of these individuals will no longer be able to utter those words. But please rest assured, our nation as a whole will survive remarkably.
Whether or not you decide to publish this on your blog is obviously up to you. But, before anyone disregards this message as that being from a ‘tin foil hat’ or a dissident person to the US please let it be known that the writing of this note of thanks was interupted several times for ‘kisses’ from my grandaughter. That is all the reminder I need to answer the question of why I am willing to give everything up. Thank you once again Leo, I hope to one day, when we are once again a shining republic, to meet you in person and shake your hand.
In Patriotic Solidarity, vigilant54 - v54
March 16, 2009 at 11:47 pm
It’s true that only Congress can remove the president from office, but if a court finds that Obama is not qualified and is therefore a usurper, that means he is NOT really the president. Could he then be removed by other legal authorities?
[Ed. No other Court besides the DC District court has the authority to challenge his qualifications. You're bringing back the "declaratory judgment" issue. No court has the power to issue a declaratory judgment to which they have no enforcement power. So no court even has the authority to try his qualifications. It's the DC Code quo warranto in the DC District Court or its nothing. This is the exclusive remedy. For the life of me, I cannot understand the fascination with trying to find a way around the only statute in out federal law which says the word "usurper". ]
March 17, 2009 at 1:32 am
Hey Bro,
Been awhile. We’re doing our own Talk Radio shows now and I have no other way of reaching you. I would like for you to come on if you can. Hit me back and my offer still stands of building you a site.
Ray
[Ed. Hey. Thanks for the offer but I'm gonna stick to this blog. It's easy for a no puter head like me to control. But thanks. ]
March 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Leo,
I just wanted to say that your letter is one of the best presentations of the issue I have read, and I’ve read a good number of them.
I retired from military service a few years ago, and I can say without reservation that your argument as presented to Mr. Taylor is spot on. The dissension in the ranks that is apparently growing cannot be good for our Armed Forces. As a former military leader, I can attest to the difficulty of persuading young minds to do difficult tasks. I cannot imagine how this question might undermine the very fabric of command and control.
I have been arguing on various blogs for the past several months about the eligibility issue. One of the biggest obstacles seems to be the purposeful ignorance of citizens who really don’t want to know the truth. Not to mention the “victors” who would lose big time if ever his election were annulled due to ineligibility. To the victor goes the spoils rings true here, and the result is people who don’t want to know the truth for fear it would topple their private dreams of compensation.
Though I am no legal scholar, I have been a life-long believer in our form of government, our legal system, and the people who protect it. As to the latter, my concerns are growing. To think of the countless brothers- and sisters-in-arms who have died protecting nothing less than the ideals that have made this country what it is, makes my heart ache. Every day I wake hoping that this is the day. The day that America wakes up and demands that those who we elect to uphold the ideal that is America!
Thank you for your efforts in this greatest of endeavors. God Bless!
Jay
[Ed. And thank you for serving.]
March 17, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I’m not trying to find a way around quo warranto; I think it’s the best option available and hope it goes through, but I don’t expect A.G. Holder to do it. U.S. Attorney Taylor might. But even though it’s the best, I don’t think quo warranto the ONLY legal option that could unfold. Dr. [Ed. snip...]
So if a court finds that Obama is not eligible, that means he’s not the president at all and CAN be removed by other legal authorities besides Congress.
[Ed. Wrong. No other court besides the DC District Court via the qw statute has any authority to judge his qualifications due to the separation of powers. Sorry but everybody grasping for this straw is grasping for lies.]
March 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Leo,
First of all, I commend you for your efforts… along with all the other citizens whom are trying to find the truth. The problem always seems that cases/issues like this are always either put on HOLD, Covered Up, or dis-regarded without any satisfactory reason. It is like, the saying, ” NO ONE is Above the LAW… except those controlling the law!!
My opinion is that this critical issue HAS to be answered by CONGRESS or the people of the USA… as anyone who would normally handle this may be biased. In other words how can say Eric Holder be fair if he was appointed by Obama?
[ed. The law provides for not just Holder but Taylor as well. Wait for AG Holder to make a decision before you judge him.]
March 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Leo,
I am not an attorney. I have no legal training. I don’t know if Obama is constitutionally eligible or not. We all have many unanswered questions concerning his background, and how it pertains to his eligibility. I truly hoped that the SCOTUS would take your case to simply put to rest the Constitutional meaning of “Natural Born”. SCOTUS refusal to ‘hear’ a case has put the country into a dangerous position, and any ruling would have been preferable to silence for the preservation of the Union. The danger is palpable now, the divide enlarging, and with these economic times I fear for the worst.
Many lives are endangered here, a single long form birth certificate and a few ‘registration’ records could avert potential bloodshed. I am saddened that the current POTUS doesn’t perceive the risk, or is exercising his Fifth Amendment rights. Unfortunately, I believe it is the latter and not the former. I implore you to find legal ways to answer the questions, before things escalate further.
[Ed. I appreciate the risk to the nation. Well said. ]
March 17, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Leo,
Just wanted to say Thanks for the reply… you really seem well educated in this arena. It is kind of you to help people understand & disprove all the rumors flying around. If it is true that the “ONLY WAY” anyone will be able to do something legally then maybe they need to all get together as a group & file for the case in DC. By standing together may help all to draw more resources & gather more info that can help the case.
Maybe then this will come to a close as far as the issue of eligibility, once & for all. The quicker the better… as the people of this country deserve the truth & will have a honest leader. It is time the citizens wake up… & start voting for only people who swear to follow the Constitution.
Thanks again for all your doing… Terry
[Ed. I have discussed the means by which the issue can be resolved according to the Constitutional separation of power via existing law contained in the DC Code. It's in the hands of the people at this point in time. The battle now falls to the people who have heard the truth as to whether these people are willing to find a way to spread the truth... This is a time for patriots to act with every fiber of their being within the letter of the law. Many will hear the truth, recognize it and do less than they know they should in the hope that others will do it for them.
Those who seek to destroy the Constitution have placed their bets upon the apathy of a dying nation. I for one am afraid they have placed their bets wisely.]
March 18, 2009 at 2:05 am
Mr. Donofrio,
I truly admire your brilliance and perseverance. This request to Jeffrey Taylor cannot come at a better time. As Mr. Obama continues in to be in power, irreparable damage to the social fabric and American way of life will continue. Damage has been done already in separating the races, poor against rich, colleague against colleague, and neighbor against neighbor. In the brief time this administration has been on power, spitefulness, deception, untruthfulness, and grittiness have made become their way of governing our great nation. If Mr. Obama is eligible to hold the office of the president, God help US, but if he is not, God help US to remove him. Thank you and God be also with you.