Concerned Citizens Encouraged to Contact US Attorney Over Eligibility
Following up on his recent condemnation of Georgia’s common law grand jury pronouncement, Leo Donofrio, attorney and Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted the following admonition for those concerned citizens who believe that the federal government has not properly addressed the President’s alleged ineligibility:
Three US Postal Receipts for Letters to US Attorney Taylor?
People are writing to me and claiming that US Attorney Taylor will never touch the eligibility issue to bring a quo warranto challenging Obama’s title to the office of President. Many are also saying that we the people have exhausted all legal options and that we must look outside the Constitution for justice.
I say there is no justice outside of the Constitution and that if you sink to that level of thought the true enemies of the Constitution will have defeated you and it forevermore.
But the people have not even come close to doing everything in their power to see that the Constitution is protected. The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute.
I DO NOT SEE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TORESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY TAYLOR BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.
If the option fails then you only have yourselves to blame if you haven’t organized a million letters and a million citizen march to the door of the US Attorney’s office.
I have not seen a response from US Attorney Taylor but that doesn’t mean he’s shut the door on bringing a quo warranto inquiry. I certainly I have not seen a negative response from US Attorney Taylor.He has said nothing publicy either way, so why is everybody giving up on the possibility that our Constitution may be working as we speak?
Did you think US Attorney Taylor would simply make a shotgun decision on something this important? Don’t you think a complete in depth study of quo warranto, the DC Code, and all possible case law would be necessary for the man to properly come to a decision? That takes some time.
Furthermore, how many of you actually wrote to the man? I told you that the prosecutor would need your protection - the protection of an intense public outcry - in order for him do something this controversial. Have you given the prosecutor your protection? Have you written to him?
Three people have written to me and mentioned they have received their green return receipt requested cards proving that their letters were accepted by the US Attorney’s Office. Three people. I’d be willing to bet that the total number of letters sent to US Attorney Taylor is less than 500 and probably much less than that.
I’ve written extensively on quo warranto and I’ve made the case that the statute is the only possible means by which the POTUS eligibility issue will ever be resolved. But the people don’t seem to really care enough to contact the US Attorney… so why should the US Attorney believe that this nation will support a decision to challenge Obama?
Based upon the lack of public outcry and the vehement language of hatred used by so many people who comment on the Obama eligibility issue, if I were the US Attorney I’d probably conclude that these advocates are simply partisan instigators concerned with their own political views and not concerned with an objective concern for the Constitution and the nation at large.
If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t get the result you’re looking for. It’s that simple. Those who are advocating methods and tactics which violate the Constitution have not done everything in their power to use the Constitutional and legal methods available. You are just as much an enemy of the Constitution as any other thug.
If every person who was troubled by Obama’s eligibility wrote a letter to US Attorney Taylor and got on the same page, perhaps there might be enough of a public outcry for the US Attorney to move on this issue. But the forces are split up and divided. Much of this has been intentional and many have been duped.
You flock to sensational muckrakers spewing emotional diatribes and irrelevant judicial maniacal madness… and you will get what you sow in the end.
There is an apparent divide forming among those with differing opinions on exactly how to go about persuading the government to pay attention to petitions.
Blogger Arlen Williams at InvestigatingObama will be investigating this issue further this coming Monday evening on “The Awakening” on BlogTalkRadio.
-Phil
We have communism in the gov.so what do you expect, they are going too do what ever they can to bring down our country for a take over,,,obama hate’s the US , anyone with a half a brain can see what they are doing,He has outlawed his way in ,and it is up to us to get him out, there will be a lot to go with him too , I know the christians of this country will never let this kind of BS get very far .
What is really important is — to expose Barrack Hussein Obama or whatever his name is and his handlers before he and they are able to appoint individuals into office to help them HIDE who they really are and their true intentions for America.
We must do everything within our powers before it’s to late before all of our Freedom have been taken away. Time is of the essence!
If good men stand by and do nothing evil will flourish.
A little information: I called the U S Attorney’s office two days in a row. (202 514 7566 and 7558) Evidently not many people are calling, because the person answering the phone is screening the calls and she reconized me as calling the day before. I do not believe the “call in information” is going to get to Jeffrey Taylor unless they are swamped with calls and letters. If a person answering the phone can tell I called the day before that is too few of calls coming in. We need to let Mr. Taylor know we are concerned about this situation in the White House. We are going to have to get by the screening with shear volume.
Phil,
No, you didn’t follow my logic at all. You said you think when people write that they want to take violent action they are merely “venting” and don’t mean anything by it. I disagreed by pointing out that history shows us again and again that people who threaten violence often follow through. Wong and Poplawski are days-old examples. And we often hear after a violent episode “we all knew he was going to explode one day.” My logic had everything to do with hoping law enforcement follows up when people “vent” and nothing to do with censoring people. But thanks for (again) twisting my words into something I didn’t mean at all. You are quite adept at it.
earl,
To follow this logic, let’s ban all video games and all movies above (or below) a PG rating, as they clearly incite people to “vent” their emotions in all kinds of ways.
In case I need to make it obvious, I’m demonstrating the absurdity of your point by being absurd.
-Phil
Phil says:
” don’t think anyone is saying they’re actually going to do this.”
I would expect law enforcement is not assuming that. When people write that they might take the law into their own hands, I am inclined to believe that they actually mean it and some eventually will try. Richard Poplawski. Jiviny Wong. They told people what they were going to do and no one thought they meant it. We have to stop making that mistake of assuming that talk of violence is “just venting.”
Phil says:
April 6, 2009 at 9:10 pm
brygenon,
Enough of the back-and-forth from both of you. Get on with an actual conversation or take it off the blog.
-Phil
******************************************************************
Thank you PHIL!
brygenon,
Enough of the back-and-forth from both of you. Get on with an actual conversation or take it off the blog.
-Phil
Jacqlyn Smith came up with,
That’s not true Jacqlyn; you did respond. I could not have followed up and quoted you had you not. What you did not do was show what the senators and congressmen actually wrote in the replies that you called “foolish”.
There there. Feel better after your e-tantrum?
Brygenon—–
It was not your actions and letters, Jacqlyn, that I asked about. I inquired on the letters of Senators and Congressmen, to see how they wasted their time to try to enlighten you.
*********************************************************************
Exactly—That is why I didn’t respond..you already pre-judged them as “foolish” before even knowing what they said…. so why would I waste my time on YOU??? You are the one who appears to be the FOOL!
“You can lead a liberal to the truth but you can’t make them think.” ~Unknown
Jacqlyn Smith wrote:
It was not your actions and letters, Jacqlyn, that I asked about. I inquired on the letters of Senators and Congressmen, to see how they wasted their time to try to enlighten you.