Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
This evening, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, reports that he has released the first part of his legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto.
At this time, Mr. Donofrio will be working solo on this issue.
For the “illegitimizers” (my term for those who don’t believe there’s a need to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirements) out there, Mr. Donofrio points out a very interesting aspect of law:
Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President. But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.
The full posting is below…
INTRODUCTION:
Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.
This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility. The brief will be sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to the issues contained herein.
Please note from the start that only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto. The applicable statute vests both officials with the same mutually exclusive authority to do so. The statute requires either/or, not both. And the statute also provides a separate mechanism by which their official consent is not necessary to an action in quo warranto where the “third person” petitioning for the writ is also an “interested person”.
Regardless, I fear justice will never prevail on this issue. By Justice I mean that the relevant issues will probably never be decided on the merits by any court. Yet, I believe every man charged with the duty to uphold the law must be given his rightful chance to follow and be guided by the rule of law. And until every effort is made to most effectively bring an action in quo warranto, I personally can’t be satisfied I’ve done everything in my power to protect the Constitution and the Republic. Thanks to my readers for pointing this out. (Also see my apology to SCOTUS for previous inflammatory comments along with removal of noted image.)
Since an action in quo warranto is unquestionably the correct legal device to challenge the eligibility of any public office holder and since quo warranto has not been properly set in motion or explained to the public, this brief will attempt to educate the public and the proper officials as to the need to resolve the Obama POTUS eligibility issue in a single quo warranto hearing rather than subject the nation to a floodgate of litigation from plaintiffs with proper standing to bring collateral attacks challenging, on the basis of POTUS ineligibility, any number of potential orders and actions to be issued by the Obama administration.
Additionally, having studied controlling quo warranto cases, I have come to the conclusion that military plaintiffs probably do not have any special standing to institute an action for quo warranto which differs from the standing of the general public. Please consider that this statement is not based on emotion but on the following;
1) the controlling statute
2) the seminal US Supreme Court decision
3) other relevant SCOTUS and federal cases
When these are examined together, it appears no special standing exists for military personnel to institute actions in quo warranto under the statute.
However, we have identified a civilian subset of “third persons” who do have a viable claim to quo warranto standing to challenge Presidential eligibility in a direct legal attack on Obama’s title to office. And so long as this civilian subset exists, there’s no good reason to subject our military to possible court martial by recklessly exposing them to UCMJ Article 88 violations as well as numerous other statutes which could potentially end their careers or land them in jail.
That military personnel are being exposed to court martial via contemptuous language and false headlines (ie, news report which erroneously stated an officer had defied a Presidential order) is one of the strongest public policy reasons why Attorney General Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor should be convinced to step in on their own motion, which is their unquestionable right by statute, to request a straight forward quo warranto hearing on the two basic core issues now in dispute.
1. Does Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as was admitted by Obama, prevent him from satisfying the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution.
2. Should Obama be forced to present, to the District Court for the District of Columbia, proper legal documentation to prove his place of birth by a form of identification regularly accepted by the Government for legal purposes.
POINT I: WHETHER A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO CAN BE ISSUED TO OUST A SITTING PRESIDENT?
A. Applicability of Statute 16-3501.
§ 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.” Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.
The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. I suggest everyone read the entire case.
According to SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office:
The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code …provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings…
…the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 317.
Years later, any doubts as to the accuracy of this interpretation were completely nullified when current federal statute16-3501 revised the predecessor code to include officers of “the United States” and not just the District of Columbia.
Neither the statute nor any existing federal case provides an exception to the office of President or any public office of the United States.
CONCLUSION: An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.
B. Constitutionality of using the federal quo warranto statute to oust a sitting President.
There are two sections of the Constitution which allow for the removal of the President. Article 2, Section 4 allows for impeachment. This is the remedy for removal of the President should he partake in high crimes or treason. A quo warranto action as to POTUS eligibility does not appear to be covered by impeachment.
The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President. But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.
Consider the following scenario: A quo warranto action is instituted by AG Holder or, in the alternative, US Attorney Taylor on their own motion. In that case, theremust be a hearing on the merits (this will be explained in detail below). Further assume Obama then produces a perfect long form birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, but then District Court of DC holds that since Obama was also a British subject at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not legally occupying the office of President. Further assume that the DC District Court’s ruling is upheld by SCOTUS.
Under this fact pattern, Obama would not have broken any laws and so he couldn’t be impeached, but he would be removed from office pertaining to the removal authority of Congress enumerated in Article 2, Section 6, and so delegated by federal statute Chapter 35, §16-3501.
CONCLUSION: Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute .
POINT II: WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT?
[this brief will be continued in part 2]
-Phil
JeffM,
Excellent commentary and precisely the point that many of us would like to make, but — shocker! — haven’t had the right words to use:
-Phil
Practical Kat,
Please show us in the Constitution or elsewhere in any lawbook or court case stating that only the mother has to be a U.S. citizen for the child to be a natural born citizen. And it better say “natural born”, not “native born”, while citing valid reasoning based on Constitutional law. It better not say “U.S Citizen” either as that’s not what Article II says.
When you bump into de Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of “Natural-born Citizen”, let us know.
Good luck.
He has provided a COLB to a couple of internet “fact” sites which have no authority nor legal basis for legally doing so.
It’s nothing more. Nothing less.
A letter from his mother saying “Jr. is a natural born citizen” is more legally binding in the court of law than the ridiculous “verifications” from these two www sites. And that, my friends, it actual fact.
marge,
You are absolutely correct. However, this “evidence” is invalid not due to forgery or any other illegal action. It’s due to the fact the published sources cannot be used as evidence in any court of law
I will repeat what I posted in other blogs regarding this so-called “evidence” of eligilibility provided by Mr. Soetoro and his merry band of lawyers…
As there is no “privity” with the public, their (factcheck.org and snopes.com) information can not be considered legally binding either. Since neither organization can be sued for damages based on false or misleading legal paperwork, their information can not be utilized as legal documentation for eligibility.
This obvious fact should be noted to the courts in every eligibility case. Arguments should be made stating the obvious:
“Factcheck.org and snopes.com are not legal or government-regulated for accuracy and provide no ‘privity’ to the American people regarding any documentation verified. Therefore any ‘verifications’ of Obama’s place of birth are not legal or binding in any court within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Factcheck.org nor snopes.com carry any private investigation licenses, nor follow any state and federal regulations for evidence collection, nor are sanctioned by any federal, state, or local agency to provide any artifact legally allowed as evidence in any court of law in the United States of America. That being said, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama has yet to provide legal evidence or proof of eligibility to the American public to become President of the United States as mandated by the qualification requirement stated in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution.”
Using this argument means that whenever Soetoro’s attorneys play this factcheck.org “eligibility card”, it can not be admissible as evidence or proof of eligibility. This would have been most helpful for Berg in his recent case, but alas, Mr. Berg simply isn’t at that level of quarterbacking. Let’s hope the rest of the attorneys get it.
brygenon,
Please cite that claim.
Great questions, but until you substantiate your original claim, they are leading and cannot be properly answered (though I won’t claim to be able to answer all the questions myself, as I am a mere common man from within the population of the “unwashed masses”).
-Phil
JeffM,
And who, exactly, do you think those “stewards” are? The People!
Yet, you want to comment about how the People have no power, the People don’t have their votes counted, and the People really aren’t citizens of this country.
Sounds like a complete contradiction to me — on the one hand you want to say the system is corrupt (when, in fact, it’s the leaders, not the system, that are corrupt) and the citizens (if there are any, according to you) have no power to change this, yet it is the People, by definition, who are responsible for holding their leaders accountable.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
OK, then, what are you waiting for? Quit making claims that there are “serious mistakes and holes” in someone’s reasoning and come out with it already! Back up your claim — preferably with linkable citations — and go on.
Most folks who comment on my site who claim to have background in the law don’t just claim — they back it up with evidence.
-Phil
Someone claims to have seen McCain’s BC also and there are questions about his eligibility. True McCain’s BC wasn’t published on the internet.
Why ask for a BC and other proof of life long undivided allegiance from Mr. O? Name another president with a known foreign father (other than Chester Arthur who hid the fact). Name another president who had might have obtained and used a foreign passport after the age of majority. Name another president who could have claimed foreign student status in college. Name another President that has associated with known terrorists. Name another President who, as a US Senator, stood on the native soil of his father’s country and effectively endorsed a possible blood relative foreign candidate for political office in the eyes of the foreign citizens.
Mr. O’s background is extraordinary for a US President. The questions about his allegiance have remained questions because he has been unwilling to provide the answers. He seems willing to say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants, the truth be damned. He has stated that the US Constitution is obsolete. He is asking for ungodly sums of taxpayer and newly printed money that may bankrupt the United States or cause hyperinflation. And he might not even be eligible to hold the Office?
We the People need to know the eligibility status of our President based on his full citizenship history.
If you bother to reply to this post, reply to all the points and not pick out a single idea to pick apart. One point may be moot, but the whole is significant.
Another issue worth pointing out is that the Chief Justice swore the new President into office (twice!). The reason behind the traditional of having the Chief Justice administer the oath is to preclude any doubts about legality.
Here’s a question for birthers: Why would John Roberts swear in a ‘usurper’? Does the Chief Justice need Donofrio’s instruction on how to interpret the Constitution? Does anyone believe Roberts would ignore the law in his zeal to elevate one of the senators that voted *against* his confirmation?
“Waxing platitudinal on my blog doesn’t earn you any extra points here, unless you’re trying to impress folks from other “illegitimizer” sites.”
I was granting extra points to Practical Kat.
Phil,
You may want to open your eyes to the problem at hand. It’s not cynicism. It’s fact. If the system was sound, as you have stated, this sort of widespread corruption we’re seeing would not be seen. A system is only as good as the stewards responsible for maintaining it.
We’ve been witnessing time and time and time again the simple fact the system is breaking down completely. Never in the history of this country have our precious tax dollars been sucked right out of our pockets in broad daylight at a massive scale. We have corruption everywhere, as seen across the entire executive, judicial, and legislative branches. We are witnessing state governments circling the wagons, as evidence of this corruption. We are seeing threats to our liberties in multiple fronts.
You can choose to ignore it and live in a fantasyland of “everything is fine…it’s the people who are doing it”, or accept the fact action is required to correct both the system and the actions of the people required to operate it. Once the people are removed, now what? What’s going to prevent it from happening again?
Quo warranto was originally a grant of the crown’s power. The modern equivalent is the president.
If no subject of the crown ever sought to apply the writ against a reigning monarch, then its historical precedent is lessened.
Practical Kat:
Should Frank Marshall Davis (some think even Malcom X) were the real father of whatshisname then we’d have fraud with the birth records of HI, wouldn’t we?
Now would that alone have caused a ten-million (if you really think there wasn’t fraud) vote swing? All you needed was more than a five million voter swing for McCain to be elected.
There are serious trackers who think Obama Sr. was a cover marriage, that momsy went first to Seattle then had the baby in Vancouver, then returned to Seattle, then to Hawaii, then wed O Sr. Thus O Jr not even native born there.
According to many, if he was natural born ( and remember still with fraudulent birth records) then he lost such status with his adoption to an Indonesian, Soetoro. He was required under then reigning law to repatriate himself in US in early adulthood, which he did not. Even if he did he’d be now only “naturalized”. Donofrio, it should be said, does not agree and emphasizes “status at birth”.
Whatever way one goes with O, its a big ZERO.
“…claptrap…”? How is it claptrap to ask that the constitution be adhered to? How many times has the opinion of a judge or panel of judges been proven unconstitutional or at least, wrong. On what basis do you declare the position you oppose “claptrap”? Let’s settle this once and for all by asking to see the original birth certificate.
Obama did not show evidence of proof. This is simply stated as evidence. We certainly are not willing to call a forged copy of his sisters COLB as evidence of proof.
Well, the problem is there are some serious mistakes and holes in Donofrio’s reasoning that probably fly right over the heads of his “nonlegal” readers. This is not meant as an insult — just pointing out that if you don’t have a legal background, its a lot harder to spot the flaws.
The “precedent” Donofrio cites is a Senate vote to refuse to seat an elected, but ineligible Senator, not a quo warranto action.
There is no question whatsoever that the Senate has the power to vote out its own members — we saw this played out with Roland Burris, where first they refused to seat him, later they relented, and there is some possibility that they may vote him out again.
This is in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,
JeffM,
The system is perfectly fine; it’s the people within the system that are corrupted.
If your voice doesn’t count, then go away.
If your vote doesn’t count, do not vote anymore.
If you don’t like the fact that the Judiciary has put rules in place, over time, to prevent all manner of suits from swamping the system, then I could see why you’d not look too kindly at the concept of standing.
No longer a citizen? Mmm, yeah. OK.
I’ll again reiterate: if you buy into this claptrap, then the cause of freedom and liberty is lost on you. Feel free to bow at the altar of cynicism; I’m not interested.
-Phil
Except for one small issue, the SCOTUS had a chance to rule on that exact issue in Donofrio’s case back when it actually mattered and they declined to intervene. If Donofrio’s arguments had merit wouldn’t they have granted Writ of Centiorari at that time? It is amazing who soon we forget even recent history. If you want to resurrect that case then good luck.
Have you been to Donofrio’s website? Have you read everything that he has to say? Seems pretty clear and direct to nonlegal me. There is precedent for stripping power from an ineligible elected official.
The issue Donofrio has raised has nothing to do with the BC.
If you offer Donofrio a clear and direct rebuttal, he would welcome it.
Tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems that Barack Obama is an ordinary citizen in an extraordinary office, who is an employee of We the People.
Why the reference to a reigning monarch? What relevance would that have in applying quo warranto to Mr. Obama?
Phil,
There have been many grand conspiracies in recent history. Whether or not this is one of them remains to be seen.
We must all be diligent in our efforts to identify fascist plots, i.e. massive conspiracies to overthrow the republic, at every turn. The framers of the U.S. Constitution warned us of this. They experienced it first-hand and were diligent in ensuring its protection as best as possible.
Replacement of ineligible, illigitimate, or illegal government officials “voted” into office is impossible when we try to utilize a system that is corrupt and essentially broken. We must come to terms with the fact we’re seeing corruption at a MASSIVE scale. Our voice does not count. Our votes don’t count. We don’t have standing. We are no longer citizens.
When we are dealing with this, our options are few. And those options don’t look very appealing at the present time.
Obama has NOT provided his birth certificate. He provided a bad forgery of a certificate of live birth. What is he hiding?
brygenon,
Waxing platitudinal on my blog doesn’t earn you any extra points here, unless you’re trying to impress folks from other “illegitimizer” sites.
That being said, the truth of the matter is that since there is no law requiring a candidate to substantiate their eligibility, there is no way for a Court to adjudicate the matter, for they cannot render a remedy based on non-existent law.
Furthermore, in the case of SoS Albright, she could have shown her eligibility credentials (or lack thereof), though she would have been in no way legally obligated to do so.
-Phil
Excellent comment, Mr. Kat.
By way of example, for the last four years of the Clinton administration, the order of succession to the presidency skipped Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Secretary of State is normally fourth in line, following President Pro Tempera of the Senate, but because Albright was born a Czech she was/is not constitutionally ineligible.
There was no serious question of her loyalty, but neither was there any suggestion of ignoring the dictate of the Constitution. There’s an argument that we should amend the Constitution, to let people such as Albright or Arnold Schwarzenegger stand for the presidency, but I hear no one saying that we should let them hold the office in defiance of the law.
Reality could hardly be more opposite from what the birthers express. Barack Obama is the *only* U.S. president to exhibit his birth certificate, the first to actually document his eligibility. The birthers’ positions are antithetical to constitutional government and the rule of law. They demand special-case burdens on this individual, imposed ex post facto. When the constitutional system of division of power, of checks and balances, uniformly affirms Obama’s presidency, they demand that their own fiat somehow overrule the findings of the constitutional office holders.
Frank Marshall Davis was an American citizen, right?
So if it turns out through DNA testing that if he is in fact Obama’s father, then Obama would be the offspring of two American-born parents, right?
Legally, the burden of proof runs the other way: anyone seeking to oust Obama would bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence (at a minimum), that he was not born in Hawaii.
Therefore he can’t be a natural born citizen, since natural born citizen requires BOTH parents to be US citizens.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Part 2 is now up on Leo’s site also, and it sure looks like it will work.
evidence?
obama’s own words: His father is not a US citizen, his father was born in Kenya. Therefore he can’t be a natural born citizen, since natural born citizen requires BOTH parents to be US citizens. And OBAMA sr. was not, even the FAKE register of live birth lists his father as an African Male, note what is missing! It does NOT say African American Male. Further more, you will probably say something like well what does that matter? It does matter, imagine if CASTRO, or AHMAMIDGETMAN,or KIM from North Korea, or CHAVEZ from Venezuela — none of which are AMERICANS, if you didn’t already know it — married or impregnated an AMerican woman, then she had a child. That child would not be eligible to be president, not natural born. Why? Because the allegience issue that the framers of the Constitution DELIBERATELY put in to avoid that very problem. Hence, OBAMA is not a natural born citizen, by any extent of the imagination.
He is not qualified, he must step down.
Do you have evidence that OBAMA sr. was a US citizen? I don’t think that you do.
So the evidence is from OBAMA Jr. himself, not the American people, not his liars, nobody else. OBAMA incriminates himself.
Furthermore, his own paternal Grandmama said in affadavit , for whatever it’s worth, that she saw OBAMA jr. born in KENYA. That is another reason that he is NOT natural born citizen.
Strike Two,
Want more?
Yes, Sally Hill:
“Split and competing loyalties…” makes the case clear. It explains why the Founding Fathers were “grandfathered” to be eligible to the Office of President, as many were born to parents who were British subjects…thus ineligiblity existed without the additional language of our Constitution.
What irony! The Sun Never Sets…
TO BE TECHNICAL
THE ONLY “PROOF POSITIVE” WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT OBAMA’S BIRTH
WOULD REQUIRE “DNA” TESTING OF THE FATHER AND MOTHER.
There were rumor’s that Frank Marshall Davis was the actual father.
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/the-real-obama-barry-davis-dunham-son-of-a-child-molester/
also: there were pictures posted of Ann Dunham in a bikini
supposedly in her 6-8 month pregnacy with a “flat” belly.
I don’t have the posting avaiable at this moment.
Was Ann his mother,or did she pull a Madonna, Jolie adoption of
a cute little African boy for reason’s unknown.
Perhap’s Maury Povich, who is known for obtaing DNA test’s on disputing parent’s can be the final judge.
There are literally “thousand’s” of cases whereas a pregnant
Woman has told a boyfriend, or husband that the child is their’s,
when in fact it was not.
The Hawaii colb allows for mere strangers to provide information for a certification of birth as long as they lived there for one year.
There are too many loopholes in the hawaii statutes on colb’s.
to Kat: If you can prove to me without a doubt that Obama was
born to two citizens of the United States, in Hawaii with
complete census statistics and long form colb, then I will believe
you.
Let’s see if the cat’s got your tongue Kat……………Dan
to kat 338-41
HAWAII COLB CERTIFICATION (not CERTIFICATE) is PRIMA FACIE within
the territory of HAWAII, which can be overcome by “other evidence”, such as the sealed colb, or a Kenyan BC, or a probable
cause which could be:
Below are “Statement’s” made by Kenyan Official’s
claiming Obama is of Kenya Soil………
complete report:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf
President Kabaki
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/Embassy.Press.Release.2008-11-05.pdf
see page 2, 17, 18, 19, 33, 35
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
OFFICIAL REPORT
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
The House met at 9.00 a.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the
President-elect, Mr. Obama is a son of the soil of this country. (bold added by me) Every other country in this
continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is
only proper and fitting that the country which
he originates from should show the same
excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek
leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss
the issue.
Adjournment so that we could also continue
the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the
USA? I humbly request!
CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARRACK OBAMA
Hon. Members, as you may be aware,
the people of the United States of America
have just had a historic election where the son
of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been
elected the 44th President of the United States
of America and the first African-American
President in the history of that country.
again,
§338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.
(b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [L 1911, c 96, §1; am L 1923, c 246, §1; RL 1925, §196; am L 1927, c 202, §1; RL 1935, §7610; RL 1945, §12910; am L 1951, c 132, §1; RL 1955, §57-40; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §9; am L 1965, c 96, §39; HRS §338-41; am L 1970, c 11, §1; am L 1972, c 66, §1(4)]
Case Notes
Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69.
Sally Hill,
You have provided one of the best comments I’ve seen, to date (outside of my own! [grin]).
-Phil
Kat,
In my opinion, you are focusing on the wrong issue. Donofrio is not after the BC as evidence of eligibility.
Personally, I believe he was born in Hawaii and I believe the COLB is legit (really, it doesn’t make any diffrence whether it is a forgery or not). I don’t think I live in fantasy land. I may, but since I believe that Obama has provided enough proof as should be required with regards to BC, I think we can agree that I live here in America with you, and not fantasy land.
However, in that the BC is NOT the issue, I’m not sure why you keep harping on the fact that he has provided proof of eligibility. Obama, himself believes he was born with dual-citizenship and THERE is the real reason why he is not eligible. So, I don’t think the case is going to hinge on whether he was born in Hawaii or not – I’m pretty sure it won’t even be an issue in the brief.
I do believe you protest too much!
Also, the writ of quo warranto was originally issued by the crown to test a person’s right to hold an inferior office.
Are you aware of any historical precedent where a reigning monarch issued this writ against himself or herself?
Pratical Kat,
Do believe that if bo had , followed the reasonable standard of diclosing his vault verson of his original certified(original seal) birth certificate, and all college and medical records,
Would bo have received more than “7″ votes
Instead of 67 million?
Or,
Would bo had received “0″ votes because all 50 states would not allow him on the ballots?
AGAIN, GREAT EFFORT LEO!!
“WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” ALONG WITH THE CONSTITUTION (THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) ARE THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE USA.
PEOPLE SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAW’S ACTUALLY ARE “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAW’S ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE VOICE OF “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
From North Carolina,
Randall
GREAT effort Leo.
A 10 year old kid has better understanding and more reasoning power than Obama and all of Obama’s cover-up specialists.
WE WANT (EXACTLY ALL) THE FACTS ON OBAMA, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (FOUGHT AND DIED FOR) MUST BE OBEYED.
QUIET ALL THE SCOFFERS SO THE LAW CANNOT BE DENIED.
If you can Leo, LIST (ON YOUR WEB SITE OR BLOG) ALL OF THE LAWS (STATUTES) THAT ARE IN FORCE THAT PERTAIN TO BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN THAT ARE BEING BROKEN.
“We The People” know that Obama is obviously trying to hide all the important facts on his background in this eligibility case.
Even he himself knows he is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Simply, Obama is a brazen (shameless and bold) liar.
From North Carolina,
Randall
To Kat:
The “posted” colb shows proof that Obama’s father was
born in Kenya. It does not show his father’s citizenship.
At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961 his father was a British
Citizen of Kenya, and never held U.S. citizenship.
AGAIN, a “natural born citizen” requires that BOTH PARENTS must
be a U.S. citizen in order to be “natural born”. What’s the big
debate?
Just because Pelosi signed a “certificate of candidacy” does not
make it legit on her say so. She never saw the sealed colb.
Obama’s colb was “sealed” in Hawaii, which usually occurs after
an adoption, or being born in another Country.
see statutes 338-17.8 , 338-20.5 , 41
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS PARENT’S citizenship.
1) his father was never a u.s. citizen
2) his mother was not old enough to pass u.s. citizenship
onto him.
3) Natural Law provides that a “child born” shall inherit the
“father’s” nationality and citizenship.
THE SIMPLE PROOF IS ON THE POSTED COLB, WHICH LIST’S HIS FATHER
AS KENYAN, AND OBAMA ADMIT’S HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN.Dan
Evidence, please?
speculative fantasy?
Obama defrauded you KAT? GET IT? HE LIED !! HE needs to be held accountable. You were take down the road, admit it. You voted for someone the same way Madoff defrauded billions. No difference. Get it now?
AS far as Donofrio is concerned, whether planned or not he spun this military issue to, at this point in time, his advantage. First he states, a couple of months ago – the military route is the way to go. Whether he knew at that point in time it would result as it has, is either pure foresight, or just plain circumstance. But what happened , happened. Now he is using that to his advantage with
“That military personnel are being exposed to court martial via contemptuous language and false headlines (ie, news report which erroneously stated an officer had defied a Presidential order) is one of the strongest public policy reasons why Attorney General Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor should be convinced to step in on their own motion, which is their unquestionable right by statute, to request a straight forward quo warranto hearing on the two basic core issues now in dispute.”
The “false” headlines being a bit of an extension of the what really came down. But finally we have a smarter approach going forth. But again, the weak link appears to be the “interested party”, which would require, I believe and correct me if I am wrong, someone like McCain or Keyes or that guy from Nicaragua or Ron Paul to meet the requirement. Can you file it “on behalf of” that doddering old fool from Arizona? Like in CA, when someone goes on death row, people file lawsuits “on their behalf”?
just a thought, have at it.
To be removed from office presumes one legitimately holds the office but for the action they are being removed for.
One cannot be said to legitimately hold an office that one is ineligible for.
If one is ineligible for an office, one can never rightfully hold that office.
Thus one is not removed from office, one is mere stripped of all pretense that the office is lawfully theirs.
Well, it won’t get heard in this case because the bottom line is no one has come up with any evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii. No judge is going to do anything other than try to get these cases off of their docket as quickly as possible, because they know from the outset that the case if frivolous. (The convoluted pleadings produced by the various hack lawyers aren’t helping their cases either — I think most experienced lawyers know that the key to getting a case heard is to present a clear and direct case.)
The point is, Obama DID publicly release a copy of his birth certificate, which was confirmed by multiple media outlets and by Hawaii Dept of Health officials on several occasions.
You (or others) may choose not to believe it — but this candidate did provide the evidence. (Certainly more than John McCain did, even though questions were raised about the circumstances of his birth as well).
So if your complaint is: Obama has not provided evidence of eligibility, you are factually wrong. He provided substantial evidence — you just choose to disregard it. (Note that I say “evidence”, not “proof” — by “evidence”, because of my legal background, I mean something that could readily be presented in a form admissible to a court of law).
If your complaint is… there ought to be a law requiring proof to a designated government agency or official… that’s fine with me. Go work to get such a law passed for the future. There doesn’t happen to be a law like that right now, so neither Obama nor McCain nor any other candidate can be faulted for not complying with a nonexistent law. (But as far as I’m concerned, the fact that he holds a US passport is good enough for me, since he would have had to supply a birth certificate in order to get one).
Obviously the Constitution does not by its terms require proof by any specified means — there was no general practice of registering births at the time the Constitution was written– generally births could be “documented” as Chester Arthur did when his birthplace was questioned: by an entry in the family bible.
Practical Kat,
You said, “then any such “delegation” of power would seem to be unconstitutional on its face. (See authorities on “nondelegation doctrine”).”
Should things proceed, perhaps the question will make it to Court one day.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
You said, “You misunderstand the position of the vast majority of the American populace. We don’t question the “need to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirement. We just feel that it is adequately protected by the electoral process — both by the popular vote and procedures set forth in the 20th Amendment.”
1. I do not believe that your position — nor, necessarily, my position — is the position of the “vast majority of the American populace.” I would wager that most people are not aware of the issue to begin with.
2. The electoral process in no way, shape or form guarantees — nor does it intend to do so — the eligibility of a candidate. That has been handled in the past by third-party entities. Don’t forget: there is presently no law requiring the substantiation of eligibility.
You also said, “So don’t call us “illegitimizers”.”
People have called me and my ilk “birthers” without ever requesting our permission; I see no reason why I can’t make up a term for those who are against defining laws requiring substantiation for eligibility.
You also said, ” We’re not the ones who want to undermine the votes of almost 70 million Americans based on speculative fantasy.”
Faulty premise, as far as I’m concerned. “Undermining the votes of almost 70 million Americans” is the unfortunate result of a candidate or President potentially being ineligible. And should the President be determined to be ineligible, it would go to show further evidence that the electoral process, per se, does not — and, again, is not intended to, per se — substantiate a candidate’s eligibility (again, there is no law requiring the process to do such).
Further, I think my term, “illegitimizer” is quite apropos regarding this baseless charge of, “speculative fantasy;” I continue to wonder when it became a “fantasy” to question a candidate’s or President’s eligibility. Not only this, but just because an eligibility lawsuit has not gone beyond granting standing to Plaintiffs doesn’t necessarily equate to their being no issue.
“It’s the question that drives us, Neo.”
Allow me to once again point something out:
The electoral process in this country in no way establishes a candidate’s eligibility for the simple fact of the matter that there is no legal obligation to substantiate a candidate’s eligibility. Therefore, appealing to the electoral process as the means by which a candidate is determined to be eligible is fundamentally a flawed and “straw man” argument.
I’m sure the “illegitimizers” can do better than that.
-Phil
Poppet.
You said, “THEY SHOULD “ALL” BE CHARGED (BUT BY WHOM?)”
The People must understand that there are no grand conspiracies within or without the government out to “get them;” this does nothing but demoralize the People and make them cynical of the government and subsequently less likely to come together to fight for a common cause.
The People must instead band together based on commonalities and, consistently and persistently, push towards ultimately replacing those who govern over us with those who are intelligent, wise and virtuous.
In the end, that will win the day.
-Phil
Phil wrote, quoting Donofrio:
If the Constitution provides that (a) the only means by which a President may be “removed” from office is impeachment, and (b) that the House of Representatives has the “sole” power of impeachment, and (c) that the Senate has the “sole” power to try an impeached President, with a 2/3 vote required for conviction….
then any such “delegation” of power would seem to be unconstitutional on its face. (See authorities on “nondelegation doctrine”).
My fellow citizens, I would like to propose for you to search your soul and consider just how high up on your daily list of priorities is “OUR CONSTITUTION”? It is being trampled. Everything we as a collective people choose to do on a daily basis is infinitesimally trivial compared to demanding that all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are upheld. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Until that changes, we can’t just pick and choose the parts of the Constitution we want to uphold on any given day. This has to be viewed as a non-negotiable issue. Berg is not and never was our only hope. The issue should be illuminated for its depth and breadth.
1. http://defendourfreedoms.us/
2. Donofrio | quo warranto:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/a-change-of-plans/
3. Continental Congress 2009
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
My fellow citizens of these great United States of America, I beseech you to Word Up, Catch Up, Stay Up and SPEAK UP…but NEVER GIVE UP!
Pixel Patriot
Phil wrote:
You misunderstand the position of the vast majority of the American populace. We don’t question the “need to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirement. We just feel that it is adequately protected by the electoral process — both by the popular vote and procedures set forth in the 20th Amendment.
As to this issue of Obama’s place of birth:
Obama chose to answer questions about his birthright citizenship by taking the following steps:
1) Posting scanned copy of COLB online.
2) Making paper copy of COLB available to neutral, nonprofit factchecking agency for inspection and photographing.
3) Submitting affidavits of declarations as to his citizenship, place of birth, or eligibility in states where that was required for the ballot.
Additionally, his eligibility was certified by his political party, and several a variety of reputable media and fact-checking services, including Snopes, the St. Petersburg Times (which emailed a copy of the scanned to the Hawaii Dept of Health for verification); and the Hawaii Dept of Health also issued a statement confirming that they have Barack Obama’s birth certificate on file. Additionally contemporaneous birth announcements from two local papers of record was produced and made public via the internet.
This was satisfactory evidence of Obama’s birth place for the vast majority of voters, for every single elector pledged to Obama, and for every Senator and Congressperson who bothered to show up on January 8th. (A significant number of Republicans did not show up to work that day, but apparently they didn’t have enough concern about birth place to feel it was worthwhile to raise an objection).
We think that’s enough, both factually and procedurally.
The only thing that stands against that is implausible speculation that a 17 year old white American girl would travel to a third-world country at a time of historical civil unrest, during the late stages of her first pregnancy, and that immediately thereafter she would rush back to the US with an infant only days old, in order to fraudulently register the birth of her half-black infant, apparently with the idea that he might one day run for President.
The evidence to support this? Nothing. Nada.
It’s not that we have any problems with the idea of proof of eligibility. It’s that we’ve already seen plenty of proof, and we’re not crazy and we’re not stupid.
So don’t call us “illegitimizers”. We’re not the ones who want to undermine the votes of almost 70 million Americans based on speculative fantasy.
If Holder and Taylor, as well as other’s were “appointed” by
a “usurper”, how can their power be valid? It does not make sense,
as they would, or should be null and void by being appointed by
a “usurper” in the first place.
(§ 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.” Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.)
All member’s of Congress and Judicial area’s are guilty of NOT
protecting and obeying our Constitutional Law’s & Oath.
It is clear that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen, which
make’s him ineligible to be a “natural born citizen” under
Article II section 1, clause 5, and all other amendment’s.
(BOTH PARENT’S must be a U.S.)
18 U.S.C. 4 governs who may receive such a
VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html
§ 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and
does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge
or other person in civil or military authority under the United States,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, “IGNORANCE” OF THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE YOU A
FREE PASS.
THEY SHOULD “ALL” BE CHARGED (BUT BY WHOM?)