Leo Donofrio: Active Military Suit is Best Chance at Challenging POTUS Eligibility (Updated)
Today, Leo Donofrio posted an article in which he posits that the best way to achieve standing in challenging an ineligible President, in his view, is to gather as many active military personnel and file suit in federal court…
Update: Leo Donofrio has recently posted another article as a follow up to the below (it is reposted below the original posting)…
I’m not speaking of a military takeover. I’m speaking of “standing” to challenge whether Obama is a natural born citizen. Active military who are currently taking orders from the commander in chief – especially those who are set to go off to war or who are currently in harm’s way -have the best possible standing to challenge whether Obama is a Constitutionally eligible President.
One of my very astute readers — “Lawyer” –brought to my attention the Obama legal team’s motion to dismiss in Berg’s new case, Hollister v. Soetoro. [my link] I’ll return to the military claim shortly, but let me hit a few other points from this motion first.
“Lawyer” told me to look at footnote 1 wherein the Obama legal team requests that the court take Judicial Notice of something written at Factcheck.org. As if something written at Factcheck.org (a phony baloney name for a shill site if there ever was one) was proof of the matter asserted and just by their making a blog post a Federal Court should simply accept its veracity. Just because a blogger writes a story doesn’t mean that a Federal Court should accept that story as true. It’s patently ridiculous. Additionally, while Hawaii has gone on record to say they have a long form BC, they have never said that the long form BC proves Obama was born in Hawaii. This isn’t really my issue as I believe Obama isn’t eligible wherever he was born, but the way they are spinning words to make thngs look legit must make one wonder why they don’t just show the damn long form BC.
By this point in time, with Obama already acting as POTUS, and his having been confronted by reserve military… you’d think he might show a military plaintiff some respect. You know, perhaps it might cross his mind to say, “OK, you’re the first person who’s asked to see my BC who I feel has earned the right to see it. So, Mr. Hollister, thank you for serving your country, here’s my long form BC”. But no. He keeps right on fighting this battle which at this point in time is starting to really smell bad. (We’ve seen McCain’s long form and it totally disproved all allegations he was born on a military installation. McCain’s long form and his colb both show he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon – Panama. )
The ante now needs to be upped, but I’ll get to that below. First let me point out a couple of other interesting points in this dismissal motion.
Footnote 2 mentions many of the cases which have been brought on the eligibility issue. As to Cort Wrotnowski’s case, the footnote references the Conn. court’s dismissal for “subject matter standing” and asks the court to take Judicial Notice of it.
But this motion certainly does not mention that the statute the Connecticut decision relied upon was not at all relevant to Cort’s pleadings since that statute, by its direct wording, only applies to “candidates” or “electors”. Cort was neither a candidate nor an elector. And there’s your kangaroo Connecticut court ruling now trumpeted by the Obama legal team.
SCOTUS knew damn well that the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling was fully bogus in every damn sense of the word – bogus – … so they said nothing. What could they say? Any commentary on my analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling would have to have been in Cort’s favor.
There is no question about that.
But since SCOTUS said nothing, now the Obama legal team makes use of the bogus decision in Connecticut.
I mean really — what the hell could SCOTUS say? The Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court put on her Obama Brigade uniform and wrote one of the most bogus and clearly full of shit opinions I’ve ever been witness to. In the SCOTUS application I wrote for Cort, I dismantled her opinion with surgical precision. What she did was take a statute that didn’t apply at all to Cort’s case and then made it appear as if Cort had erroneously brought his law suit under that statute while at the same time she ignored the exact law Cort did file under. It was pure evil what she did as a jurist.
And SCOTUS just looked the other way.
Then Footnote 2 mentions my case as well:
“Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division
(N.J. 2008)”My case wasn’t a “motion”. My case was a “direct appeal”. And just like in Cort’s case, the NJ Appellate Division judge tried to railroad me as well. At first, they asked me for a $200 check which is the correct amount for a direct appeal. But later, when they realized just how powerful my argument was, the Judge forced me to accept my $200 payment back and he made the docket look as if I filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal ($30) instead of a direct appeal ($200). Here’s why:
- a direct appeal can go straight to the NJ Supreme Court and from there to SCOTUS
- a notice of motion for leave to appeal is an interlocutory motion in a pending lower court case and therefore I would be required to go back to the lower court before presenting a justiciable matter to the higher courts
They forced me to take back my $200 payment which had already been accepted by the Court. How many times do you think that has happened? Furthermore, the motion for summary judgment that I filed that was actually stamped as “accepted” by Judge’s chambers was never entered into the record of the case.
SABOTAGE.
The Judge knew damn well I was filing a direct appeal and that such an appeal was statutorily correct. But he also donned his Obama Brigade protectionary cloak and stuck his neck out to screw with my pleadings.
I have a pending ethics complaint which has been deemed “confidential” by the Judicial Committee, so I can’t discuss what’s going on with that. I am also exploring a civil action for monetary damages. If I take that route, I will issue a subpoena to put each SCOTUS justice on the witness stand to determine whether the lower court judge’s actions in making my “direct appeal” look like a “notice of motion for leave to appeal” had any effect on their denial of my application.
I didn’t have to request leave to appeal. New Jersey code allows a direct appeal for actions in lieu of prerogative writs. I even cited the statute in my pleadings and correspondence to the judge. But the judge tried to transform my pleadings to make them appear inferior. They did the same thing to Cort. As an attorney, I believe the same legal mind was consulted and the same type of falsehoods were put into these lower court cases.
I have a right to know whether or not the lower court judge’s activity effected the SCOTUS justices in their denial of my claim. In this way, it may be possible to get some precedent out of them. The only way to find that out is to ask them under oath. But I would certainly run into more judiciary protectorate cult operatives by going forth. And while that may not stop me, I know of another class of litigants who would not be so easily dismissed.
ACTIVE MILITARY USING FEDERAL COURTS ARE OUR BEST CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS.
In the Hollister motion to dismiss, the Obama legal team challenges the plaintiff’s standing in that they claim he hasn’t suffered an “injury in fact” since even though he may be subject to military recall, until that might happen he has no injury. Here’s what they said:
“Although plaintiff alleges he “is literally caught between a rock and a hard place,”
plaintiff has not alleged that he has personally suffered any injury. See Dkt. #1 at ¶34. In
addition, even if these peculiar claims built on a hypothetical recall to active military duty are Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 9 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 6 of 11 taken at face value, plaintiff is engaged in the rankest speculation: He does not even allege a basis for believing that his return to duty is likely, much less probable. Instead, plaintiff’s allegations expressly concede that his renewed military service is pure conjecture at this point.”If this argument is taken away from the Obama legal team, then they have a much more difficult burden.
All things considered, the people with the best possible standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility are ACTIVE military NOW deployed or active military who have recently received deployment orders.
GET A LARGE GROUP OF ACTIVE MILITARY MEMBERS TOGETHER UNDER ONE LAW SUIT AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE A SERIOUS CASE.
The military has already signaled their willingness to stand up to Obama. See this article…
Bottom line… while my case and Cort’s case were strong and proper, it’s easy for the CULT’S protectorate to mess with us as they so blatantly did.
But imagine a class action of 25,000 soldiers asking to see his long form BC and also challenging his eligibility as a dual citizen at birth.
WONG KIM ARK as POTUS?
Does anybody believe that the framers intended Wong Kim Ark to be commander in chief? The case doesn’t say that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”. The case says he was a “citizen”. But many are trying to spin that case to say that Obama is a natural born citizen even though he was British/Kenyan at birth. In order to make the case you have to add the words “natural born” to the ruling of the case.
But more than that, you have to believe that the framers intended that persons such as Wong Kim Ark could become President. That means any Bin Laden born in the US while studying here could become President. Or, suppose Kim Jong Il of North Korea sent his best students here to study at college. If any of them had a child, then that child could be President. The framers sought an extra generation of loyalty to this Country. That’s why the standards for Senator and Representative only require one to be a “Citizen” but to be President they asked for more, they demanded more loyalty generationally in that one be a “natural born citizen.”
If hoards of active military will stand up and fight for our Constitution in the courts, this will provide the best possible chance of the Constituion surviving.
New post:
I’ve been reading some very stupid things about this issue online. My research thus far (watch blog for in depth post on the topic) leads me to believe that active military may be able to bring Federal citizen suits regarding POTUS eligibility due to their unique standing with regard to “injury in fact” in that they are alleging specific possible harm different than that of the ordinary citizen class. These are the two “standing” hurdles that other federal Obama and McCain eligibility suits failed to overcome.
Please note that I am NOT advocating soldiers disobey orders to bring such a suit. Nobody should be doing that.
The suit I am contemplating would not be by the soldier as a soldier but rather by the soldier as a citizen who has specific risks placed upon him in being governed by a non-constitutionally authorized POTUS.
Moreover, the same suit could include a separate count requesting a declaratory judgment by the Federal Court as to whether Obama is a “natural born citizen” in that soldiers who have become aware of the plethora of law suits and theories brought forth in the courts and in the national media may be confused as to whether or not the Constitution has been violated; either intentionally – if the Obama BC is a fraud – or unintentionally, if a Court determines Obama’s British/Kenyan citizenship at birth disqualifies him as POTUS.
Furthermore, if the type of law suit I have discussed above does in fact clear all UCMJ and other legal hurdles which might put the soldiers in legal jeopardy, then the best way to proceed would be as a mega-class action.
EVERY SOLDIER BEING ASKED BY OBAMA TO POSSIBLY LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR THIS COUNTRY HAD TO PROVE IDENTITY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO POST A PHOTOCOPY OF A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH TO A WEBSITE, HIRE FACTCHECK.ORG TO CHECK IT, AND THEN HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO BACK OFF.
No chance of that happening for our troops, so why is the commander in chief cut such slack?
Obama owes these men who are willing to die for us the courtesy of proving who he is under at least as stringent proof requirements as they have been ordered to subject themselves to. Shouldn’t the commander in chief be held to a higher standard of proof, not a lesser one, especially when the commander in chief was a British/Kenyan dual national at birth?
I still believe Obama has the long form BC and that he was born in Hawaii. That doesn’t make him eligible in my opinion since he was a subject of the British Monarchy at birth and the framers would never have agreed such a person should be POTUS.
Regardless, there’s good reason for people to be concerned that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.
I can understand Obama not bowing to somebody like Berg who was a Hillary supporter. Nothing meant against Berg either, but I didn’t challenge Obama directly because I, as a citizen, didn’t have Federal standing to challenge Obama and I don’t believe Berg or anybody else – who doesn’t have a more specific possible injury in fact – has Federal standing for such a suit according to precedent. I don’t agree with that precedent (more on this to follow), but that is the state of Federal standing law and it’s rather concrete. I said this over and over again on the radio. (I brought my lawsuit against the Secretary of State in New Jersey for not following her oath of office to uphold the Constitution and therefore she failed to protect the integrity of New Jersey ballots. )
But these military people do, in my legal opinion, have standing to sue in Federal Court because of the unique harm they face.
More to come…
-Phil
I’ve thought from the start, that this “standing” or “direct harm” issue was just a subversive and subjective technicality at best, which in and of itself, has no standing. As so many millions of us are “natural born citizens”, we absolutely have standing and are being directly harmed, if for no other reason that the founders expected loyalty to the Constitution above all else.
That being said, we most definitely have standing and direct harm now, that BHO has signed into law legislation which affects us all in so many ways, least of which are our check books and lively hood. I still have hope that honorable jurors will do what they absolutely know is the RIGHT THING, even if not PC, and live up to a small degree of the courage of the loyalists from bygone eras.
sus,
I think that sentiment goes without saying when attributed to folks such as yourself
-Phil
Yeah. Saw that. Looks to me like Leo thinks Orly’s reckless. See his reply in the comments:
\
“[Ed. I can appreciate putting a Constitutional battle in play and sticking with it.
I can also appreciate the following law. By allowing the officer's comments to be published and by spreading the particularly aggressive vibe she and WND put out, they may have exposed the officer and themselves to prosecution under the following law. There was a more wise way of discussing the eligibility issue available to them which would have better protected all involved from exposure to the following law while at the same time expressing their legal questions. They chose to be inflammatory and that was a legal mistake. Starting a press campaign in this way serves no purpose, especially since no law suit has actually been filed. Regardless, sensationalizing the issues as they did, going so far to include a blatantly false headline was insane.
Check this out... then review what went down over the last few days.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
***
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval
forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]
I’m LMAO. And, looking into buying stock in Popcorn. The market may be down… but I’m thinking popcorn sales are up.
I never did like Reagan or Nixon. Always felt they were up to something. This proves it.
I think Patrick is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a certain segment of the birther brigade.
Dismisses “Factcheck” and instead refers to “Center for Security Policy”. “The Center sponsors “Family Security Matters.” On August 3, 2007, Family Security Matters published an opinion piece by Philip Atkinson, which advocated for making George W. Bush president for life, because “The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable.”
That’s America!
How about the Republican Election Overseer and Rick Leventhal who were intimated and denied entrance by the BP to the voting room in Philadelphia? Finally the Overseer was allowed after the police became involved, but Rick Leventhal was not and he seemed to feel intimation throughout the whole saga.
I did my homework. This has been investigated.
@ ????????
The Annenburg Foundation was started by that Walter Annenberg who was a great friend of Ronald Reagan and worked for Nixon. he sounds like a flaming liberal to me. Factcheck is also non-partisan. Do your homework.
Georgetown,
I think this is actually a great idea, but only if they can get Joe Jamail to represent them. Do you not see the potential of having Berg, Orly, Donofrio and Jamail taking depositions together?
Not all in agreement with President Obama.
I think that President Obama may just be making a big mistake here with his plan of the withdrawal of troops in Iraq. Although these Military Officers will obey the President, they certainly are not in agreement with his proposal. Re: This Story –
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.
The Full Story: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640
Sue,
Leo is sore about a procedural thing with the New Jersey judge, so he filed a complaint against the judge. I doubt it will get anywhere because at the end of the day SCOTUS considered his case and declined to accept it. Een if the New Jersey commission on judicial ethics wants to investigate Leo’s complaint, it cannot and would not issue subpoenas to SCOTUS justices. Their immunity from legal process includes immunity from being subpoenaed.
Leo just needs to blow off some steam, get back to jamming with his band.
Tychicus,
The “three fifths of all other Persons” is a reference to slaves. Research the Three Fifths Compromise of 1787.
Class actions do not have any more weight simply by sheer numbers. Besides, you don’t just declare yourselves a class and file a class action. You must obtain the court’s certification of the class. Good luck with that.
No, but it’s fun watching JeanWTP conjure up new legal theories. Everybody and his/her brother is an armchair lawyer these days.
I missed this thread until tonight. Who let all of Captain Moroni’s folks out to run free over here?
There is a common theme of paranoia among the Birther group. Didn’t Orly Taitz accuse the Supreme Court justices of conspiring with Obama because they had a social event for the President Elect the week before the inauguration? She has also DEMANDED that they produce records of that meeting. I would like to see how many “hairy” martinis Clarence Thomas knocked down too but I would stop short of demanding the records. Any judge who fails to see the brilliance of their arguments is immediately labeled as “bought off” or in on the conspiracy.
There is a post on Leo’s site, I think it is from Leo himself but am not sure, which contradicts this thread.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
1Lishell,
“that is language that legitimizes slavery”
There no mention of “slavery” in this article. Rather there is mention only of “persons” free or otherwise.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus
The Pattern is called Corruption at the Top. You have yet to see
How “Your Man” will CHANGE YOUR LIFE when ever Freedom
you enjoy is “Lost” for Good. When it hits home for YOU, we’ll
see who is “LMAO”. Get Educated and Learn what the Man you
Support so blindly is proposing to do to our country. If you’re
Clueless, At this point in time, you’re not one of the majority.
Lmao! You guys are still trying to get military in this “natural born”BS? Wow! That’s halrious…Wasn’t the Cort Wrotnoski case the “best” case go go after Obama? And then Phil Berg vs. Obama? And now Leos milatary case? Do you see a pattern here?
Every time there is a case dismissed you guys always have a new one that is the “best”. LMAO! Don’t you get it? Obama is and will remain president…peroid. Get over it you lost!
It’s Interesting that in the news today, MSM says that Obama wants to start sending troops home within a year.
How is it, he’s Always one step ahead every time.
There is no constitutional right to cast a valid ballot. 241 is aimed at prosecuting disenfranchisement, ballot box stuffing, registration fraud, etc.
Even if the birther claims were proven true, it wouldn’t fall under 241.
JudyP,
I’ve never been to his website. Both Berg and Taitz have “donate” on their websites so I simply assumed Donofrio did too. I still cannot figure out who he’s going to sue for monetary damages–Judges/Justices?
This is most likely the true origin of the NBC clause. It is from the source upon which the founders relied heavily and the reason the document they created is timeless and thorough, pre-empting end runs by anticipating future troubles. Mere men can’t do that. ( the highlights by brackets are mine ):
Deuteronomy 17 (The Message)
Deuteronomy 17
14-17 When you enter the land that GOD, your God, is giving you and take it over and settle down, and then say, “I’m going to get me a king, a king like all the nations around me,”
[make sure you get yourself a king whom GOD, your God, chooses.]
[Choose your king from among your kinsmen; don't take a foreigner—only a kinsman.]
And make sure he doesn’t build up a war machine, amassing military horses and chariots. He must not send people to Egypt to get more horses, because GOD told you, “You’ll never go back there again!” And make sure he doesn’t build up a harem, collecting wives who will divert him from the straight and narrow. And make sure he doesn’t pile up a lot of silver and gold.
18-20 This is what must be done: When he sits down on the throne of his kingdom, the first thing he must do is make himself a copy of this Revelation on a scroll, copied under the supervision of the Levitical priests. That scroll is to remain at his side at all times; he is to study it every day so that he may learn what it means to fear his GOD, living in reverent obedience before these rules and regulations by following them.
[He must not become proud and arrogant, changing the commands at whim to suit himself or making up his own versions.]
If he reads and learns, he will have a long reign as king in Israel, he and his sons.
Sue, If you followed Leo Donofrio, Esq.’s Lawsuit, you’d know these answers. No, Leo Donofrio has NEVER solicited for Donations, In fact, He discouraged it Emphatically, In Fact again, He Paid for
his lawsuit Out of his own pocket and did all the Legwork and Brain work and put himself out on a ledge for America to defend our Constitution. With every obstacle thrown in his path while doing so, this man has been nothing short of a Hero to those of us who
supported his efforts all the way.
Lishell,
Do you not think that there was a conspiracy by the Candidate, the DNC, members of Congress, state officials and probably high ranking advisors/cabinet members to put an “ineligible” candidate (Obama and McCain) on the Presidential ballot in all 50 states, knowing that the candidates were not eligible for that office due to the fact that neither of them was a Natural Born Citizen, thereby, interfering with a “the free exercise or enjoyment of any voter, the right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or laws of the United States under color of law to exercise their constitutional right to cast a “valid” vote.
Why can’t Article 241 be interpreted broadly? This type of conspiracy, if proven to have existed, could, in fact, be interpreted to be a conspiracy that was intended to “injure voters.” In fact, no one would even have to show that the conspiracy was successful or that there was an overt act.
And, what about fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, are these not viable? Have they been explored?
I profess to be no legal expert, as I stated, I am not an attorney, I am just seeing how far it MAY BE possible to conform alternative arguments to existing law and precedent or to push judges to make new law.
Obviously, you would agree that we are in “uncharted” water here. I don’t think any laws were specifically drafted by the legislators to take into account what has recently transpired.
“I have a pending ethics complaint which has been deemed “confidential” by the Judicial Committee, so I can’t discuss what’s going on with that. I am also exploring a civil action for monetary damages. If I take that route, I will issue a subpoena to put each SCOTUS justice on the witness stand to determine whether the lower court judge’s actions in making my “direct appeal” look like a “notice of motion for leave to appeal” had any effect on their denial of my application.”
GeorgetownJD or Phil or both,
Ethics complaint–against who? SCOTUS? If it is confidential, why even mention it? “civil action–monetary damages???? what monetary damages?–doesn’t he get “donations” too?, against who?; Subpoena SCOTUS? Explain this please.
Also, the requirement, at least as I recall it, is that it be emotional trauma that would cause those symptoms in a reasonable person, i.e. watching your kid get killed by an elevator door closing on him, or having a hospital accidentally mail you a severed leg instead of your dead dad’s personal effects. (Both actual cases)
In this case, I can’t fathom any court saying the emotional trauma meets those standards.
Georgetown, I doubt that would work-Do you really see a court accepting election results as a but for or proximate cause of a health condition?
Jean,
I’ve read it. It’s still irrelevant because there was no violation under that section-no conspiracy to intimidate or disenfranchise.
I am not stating that section 241 will be the winning arguement, like I said, I am not even an attorney, and for that reason, sometimes, someone like me, may be able to see things that others don’t or may be able to offer a suggestion that a skilled attorney can run with.
My only purpose in bringing this up at all, was to stress that point, that the attorneys that are filing these lawsuits have to “start thinking out of the box.” The arguments that are being used, continually seems to fail, case after case.
This reminds me of a story I heard long ago. It was the story of a truck that was stuck under an overpass and a number of engineers were called in to figure out how to get the truck out. The truck was completely wedged under the overpass and the top part of the truck was particially crushed.
The engineers began to scratch their heads, one suggested that they would should bring in equipment to lift the overpass, another suggested that the top section of the truck would have to be cut off. Then a little boy riding his bike came up to the scene and informed the engineers that if they let the air out of the truck’s tires, the truck would fall lower than the overpass and it could be rolled out. And, presto, the problem of the stuck truck was solved, by a little boy that was looking at the problem with a fresh set of eyes.
I am not trying to belittle or minimize the legal work that is being done or the legal arguments that are being made. I am only trying to look at the legal arguments with a “fresh set of eyes,” and make observations that may help someone try a “new approach.” Something that could make the “lighbulb” go on in someone’s head, so they start to think “outside of the box.”
My only pupose in writing the original comment is to ask, “If we let air out of the tires, could we make a better case?”
Annenberg Foundation owns Factcheck.org for which President Obama was a board member and disbursed funds to his ACORN group. Conflict of interest????
I’m sure there is one out there….If you are a voter who has suffered health issues as a direct result of BO being elected POTUS, please step forward and contact Mario Puzzo or Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
This information comes directly from the DOJ’s own manual on how to Prosecute Election Crimes and Election Fraud.
All the case citations come directly from the Department of Justice. If you read the blog article referenced in it’s entirely, there was a link provided to the DOJ’s 384 page Manual. This manual will allow you to read, verbatim, the case law and legal arguments that the DOJ advocates to be used to prosecute all types of elections fraud, including voting rights and constitutional violations.
That is why I am suggesting to use the same case law, arguments and “theory” that the Department of Justice uses to prosecute election fraud and related crimes to OUR advantage in these civil lawsuits, none of which seem to overcome the “standing” issue.
Hope this clears things up.
1Lishell,
I’d prefer simply repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments and then call it a day
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Patrick McKinnion,
I’ve already gone on record in a previous comment somewhere that that’s exactly what I would postulate, should he decide to run.
If it’s good for the goose…
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
canaan,
In my non-attorney opinion, should any court get to the discovery phase in a lawsuit (which, by definition, means the Plaintiff(s) have overcome standing as an argument and that they have been determined to have real damages and their prayer for remedy is sufficient), and the original birth certificate is ordered, then you’re effectively beginning the process of closing down all reasonable lawsuits RE: eligibility. Yes, I’m sure there are some so-called “birthers” that wouldn’t be satisfied even with a birth certificate, and it is true that the argument over UK-Kenyan colonial law RE: British citizenship would still probably be an issue, but the original document is part of what would satisfy my questions.
Of course, one would need to get to a discovery phase first.
Thanks for the questions,
-Phil
The Framers also included language about “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Article I, Sec. 2.
That is language that legitimizes slavery. Should we repeal the 13th Amendment because it goes against the Framers’ original intent?
Your friend is misinterpreting the plain text meaning of the NBC clause combined with the 14th Amendment. From reading these two, it is obvious that “natural born citizen” means someone who is born a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether their parents are or not. This is the generally accepted view, and has been for some time.
I have to comment on the irony of your user name. Bobby Jindal’s parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth here in the US. Therefore, if one argues the belief that Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to his father not being a US citizen, then Bobby Jindal is doubly unsuited.