Links tagged “Leo Donofrio”

The push-back on the alleged image the White House produced this morning has begun in earnest, this time in “snarky” form from TheSmokingGun.com.

Here are the key “snark-astic” questions the site poses:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant in box 19a?

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers, however, it is spelled “Ukulele.”

The site is apparently trying to get “ahead of the game” in terms of the scrutiny that this new online image will obviously produce.

But what about Susan Nordyke’s certificate, born one day after Mr. Obama? One can clearly see differences (click image for larger picture):

Susan Nordyke's birth certificate

Bryan Keith Nixon, an associate creative director for an Atlanta-based advertising agency, pulled up the White House-released image in Adobe Illustrator. This is what he found (click on image for larger view):

The layers that compose the White House-released PDF of Mr. Obama's birth certificate (Bryan Keith Nixon)

And attorney Leo Donofrio responded to today’s news by saying that his prediction of a long-form birth certificate has been fulfilled to the potential detriment of certain legal questions, such as parental citizenship (last three paragraphs):

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.

-Phil

Sunday, January 24, 2010 Update:

Attorney Leo Donofrio has posted this story on his site as well as a trackback to this posting…

—-

In what is a blogosphere exclusive, attorney Leo Donofrio, in conjunction with attorney Stephen Pidgeon, have filed a Response to Debtor’s (Defense’) Objection to Reconsider the Court’s Objection.

Update: Lead Plaintiff James Anderer is set to be on the CBS Evening News this evening and (last-minute cut, per Mr. Anderer) on Fox with Neil Cavuto on Monday.

Update: This particular bankruptcy suit — originally broke by Portland Civil Rights Examiner’s Dianna Cotter – involves 76 ex-Chrysler dealers who believe that the Judge involved with the case, Robert J. Gonzalez, committed an unintentional fraud by misinterpreting Fiat’s executive, Alfredo Altavilla’s statement that restructuring had to occur before the Fiat purchase of Chrysler could occur. However, Mr. Altavilla never actually stated that restructuring had to occur before the deal could close. In his rejection Opinion, Judge Gonzalez made it appear as if Mr. Altavilla did testify that rejections were necessary for the deal to close.

Here’s the actual testimony:

Please review the actual testimony of Altavilla (May 27, 2009 Hearing Tr. at 352) which is referred to in both Footnotes 18 and 21 of the Court’s Rejection Opinion:

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?

A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

The following is the Defense’ OBJECTION OF DEBTORS AND DEBTORS IN POSSESSION TO AMENDED MOTION OF CERTAIN DEALERS TO RECONSIDER THE COURT’S JUNE 9, 2009 REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 19, 2009 REJECTION OPINION:

Docket #6216 – Document #1

The following is the Plaintiff’s RESPONSE TO DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT’S JUNE 9, 2009 REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 1 REJECTION OPINION:

Docket #6270 – Document #1

As Leo Donofrio pointed out in an email to The Right Side of Life, the Defense decided to inject a bit of Alinsky-ite tactic by specifically referencing Messr. Donofrio’s and Pidgeon’s past litigation concerning presidential eligibility as the basis for why they have waited to bring such a petition now (Defense’ Objection, page 8, paragraph 13):

13. Because the Movants offer no explanation whatsoever for their election not to appeal or for their extended delay in bringing their Motion (13), they have failed to meet their burden.

The referenced footnote on the same page reads as follows:

Given their extreme lateness and the absence of any new development in the record or law, it is unclear what has motivated the Movants’ sudden change of heart and request for relief at this late juncture. Although the Debtors have no independent knowledge of these matters, the Debtors have taken note of certain public statements connecting the Motion to a crusade involving the Movants’ counsel to challenge Barack Obama’s legitimacy as President of the United States. For example, one report has stated:

Birthers are launching yet another scheme to challenge President Obama’s legitimacy as President of the United States. The scheme involves a legal maneuver known as “quo warranto,” a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or “franchise”) he claims to hold. This new attempt to get at Obama is a circuitous affair, centering on the Chrysler bailout, and Obama’s authority to use Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler. Former Chrysler dealers who lost their businesses as part of the restructuring of the automobile company are filing a legal challenge to that restructuring in bankruptcy court. . . . The attorneys of record are . . . Leo Donofrio . . . and Stephen Pidgeon.

Michael Stone, Quo Warranto: Return of the Birthers, EXAMINER.COM, http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009ml2d9-Quo-warranto-Return-of-the-Birthers (last visited January 6,2010); see also Bob Unruh, Closed Chrysler Dealers to Drive Obama’s Eligibility, WORLDNETDAILY, Dec. 8, 2009, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=l18403 (last visited January 10, 2010) (“Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government’s . . . bail out [of] Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be [P]resident.”)

The corrected link for the Michael Stone piece is http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m12d9-Quo-warranto-Return-of-the-Birthers.

In his response, Leo Donofrio states the following (Plaintiff’s Response, pages 3-4, beginning second full paragraph):

Finally, before we begin our legal argument in response to Debtors’ Objection, we draw the Court’s attention to Page 8, Footnote 13 of Debtor’s Objection memorandum. In that Footnote, Debtors’ Counsel improperly attempts to psychoanalyze the motivations of our clients in bringing the Motion to Reconsider by making reference to news reports which discuss non-related Constitutional causes which have absolutely nothing to do with the Motion before the Court. Footnote 13 is an entirely improper attack upon Movants’ and their Counsel by way of reference to controversial lawsuits which Movants’ Counsel have been involved with. Such distractions serve no purpose before this Court other than to distract, confuse, and delay justice by throwing dirt in the Court’s eyes. Our Motion pointed out that the Government never requested dealers be rejected and so this Footnote serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters in which this Court must now swim. We request this Footnote be stricken and that Debtors’ Counsel be required to resubmit their memorandum without it.

Furthermore, if Debtors’ Counsel has not comprehended the true motivation for this Motion, we would remind them that our clients lost their businesses when the Debtors instituted Project Tiger and ripped our clients’ livelihood from them along with approximately 40,000 community jobs during this most difficult recession. Our clients are suffering. Their communities are suffering. That suffering is directly motivating this Motion. Should the Rejection Opinion be reversed, our clients will find relief from that suffering.

Mr. Donofrio goes on to say in his email that the only thing the Plaintiffs said about the government in the Motion was that they (the government) did not ask that the dealers be rejected, suggesting that the premise of the dealership losses — as described in the first paragraph of this posting — is based on the Court’s apparent misstatement of key testimony (Plaintiffs’ response, page 4).

Mr. Donofrio lays out the case for “misstatement” versus “misinterpretation” on page 6 of the Plaintiffs’ response:

Debtors’ allegation that we have taken issue with the Court’s interpretation of this testimony is misplaced. It’s not that we take issue with the Court’s interpretation of testimony, it’s that we take issue with the Court’s misstatement of the testimony. Footnote 21 makes it appears as if the witness stated that restructuring needed to occur for the sale to close. The answer is parsed after the word “occur”. But the very next sentence (as properly described in Footnote 18) continues the response to the very same question. There was no intervening question. It’s all part of the same Q & A. Footnote 21 therefore improperly supplements the record. This is not merely ”fact finding” as Debtors’ Counsel has alleged, this is fact making which is improper in the extreme and exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth.

Furthermore, the record of the case is absolutely devoid of any specific testimony which opposes the fact that no relevant party ever requested dealers be rejected. But Footnote 21 gives the fraudulent appearance that Altavilla’s testimony provides just such a request. It doesn’t. The witness testified that whether restructuring occurred before or after the closing was not a “material difference”. Those words are direct, unambiguous and perfectly responsive to the time sensitive question asked on cross- examination. The core issue before this Court was whether the purchaser required that the seller restructure the dealership network as a condition precedent to the deal closing. Since the record is clear that no other party (US Government, Canadian Government or VEBA/UAW) requested dealer rejections, then without the purchaser making such a request, there was no sound reason for the Debtor to reject the dealers if the purchaser was willing to close the deal without dealers having been rejected.

In my non-attorney view, the idea that the Defense would literally invent a basis for the rationale of why the Plaintiffs are coming forward at this point based on completely unrelated issues is indefensible and is very similar to the modus operandi of many “opposition” commenters on this blog. Really, it is akin to saying that one is incapable of holding a particular viewpoint because said petitioner has exhibited views that are considered unconventional, esoteric or out of the mainstream (in some cases, even worse pejorative-sounding language).

While it is true that Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon have already announced their intentions to file a quo warranto petition in the District of Columbia, that fact is judicially irrelevant to this case and deals with a completely unrelated issue. In fact, this site has already documented the fact that the Chrysler bankruptcy petition will be resolved based solely and completely upon the dealers’ wishes, which, in theory, could involve a settlement (which would fly in the face of the concept that somehow presidential eligibility has any basis for pushing forward on a Chrysler bankruptcy case).

I think Mr. Donofrio is exactly right in his response. Psychoanalysis, as he puts it, has absolutely no bearing in attempting to divine the intents of the petitioners, as the Defense has tried to construe things. In other words, such mind-reading is the equivalent of essentially saying, “Well, all that the petitioners are really trying to do is get rid of the President, and you know that’s the basis for this move. Besides, don’t the dealers whom they represent know that these two attorneys are really nothing but BIRTHERS??? Come on. Someone who thinks like that couldn’t possibly have a reasonable point in all of this.”

Again, how rescuing ex-Chrysler dealerships from alleged wrongs that might have been done by the Judiciary has anything to do with presidential eligibility is completely beyond me.

Updated commentary: Why would the Defense wish to bring up unrelated issues for this petition if they had a strong case against the Plaintiffs? Up to this point I dismissed the idea of there being conspiracies shielding this President from questions regarding his past as being fantasy. However, I am not so sure about this any more. The opposition would only go ad hominem in this way if they were running out of rhetorical ammunition with which to defend themselves.

Look for additional coverage coming soon from Dianna Cotter as well as ThePostEmail.com.

Update: ThePostEmail recently posted on this story.

See my highlighted coverage in my Chrysler Bankruptcy category.

Cross-posted at FreeRepublic.com.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy Examiner.com

Update: Leo updates his blog with an audio clip from Fox News:

[UPDATE 10:30AM] FOX NEWS gets it right in very brief clip.  It’s short but accurate. Bret Baier mentions Friday’s SCOTUS activity on the case.

I think we can safely say that all of the hub-bub over the Barack Obama eligibility issue that has been making the rounds in the blogosphere is coming to a boiling point and percolating on over to the mainstream press. I also think it’s fair to say that this Friday, depending on what the Supremes decide in Donofrio v. Wells, there could be a diluge of press coverage.

First, I’ve gotta give a really huge hat tip to columnist Joan Swirsky who, in her latest piece entitled, “Obama The Trojan Horse,” links to my category, above, for Leo Donofrio’s case. And, as usual, she does a great job of summing up the facts known, to date, including why folks in the press — even talk radio! — have not been covering any of this. There’s also a mention of the Russian news site, Pravda, and their editorial.

Next up is Leo’s response to the Kansas City Star’s article. It is posted, in full, below. As you’ll see, if the Supremes don’t make a clear-cut decision one way or the other on Friday, there’s going to be a lot of misinformation clean-up to be done. As Leo opines, it is truly amazing how much the press simply does zero reporting to uncover actual, verifiable evidence.

Last but by no means least, here is some info I received via email concerning reactions to the We The People Foundation’s Chicago Tribune ad:

Irate phone calls & e-letters over the FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENT in Today’s Chicago Tribune challenging Barack Obama to PROVE WHERE HE WAS BORN with MORE than a FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!

A call was made by reader to Kristin today in the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Department.  Kristin says the Chicago Tribune has been receiving volumes of irate phone calls & e-letters over the FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENT in Today’s Chicago Tribune challenging Barack Obama to PROVE WHERE HE WAS BORN with MORE than a FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!

The ad is also scheduled to run on Dec. 3rd – but Kristin of the Chicago Tribune seemed to doubt whether that would happen – given the hate e-mail & calls already received today?

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

Both the NBC News Chicago Bureau & the NBC New York Desk 1- (800) NBC-NEWS (1-800-622-6397) , as well as CBS News New York National Desk @ 1-(212) 975-4114 STILL REFUSE to ACKNOWLEDGE the Advertisement in the Chicago Tribune or the Obama Birth Issue before the Supreme Court this week!

Update: Americamustknow.com reports that the Chicago Sun-Times has written a scathing article on all of this. Do you think we’re hitting a nerve?

Update: Here are two more articles from the Chicago Tribune regarding the ad.

Update: WorldNetDaily reported, via email to its subscribers, that their readers have FedEx’d 31,545 letters to the SCOTUS Justices in less than 24 hours. Here’s the link to do so today. Requests to send letters must be given to WorldNetDaily by noon, Thursday, December 4.

Update: Leo has posted a response to the WorldNetDaily letter sending, below.

Update: CanadaFreePress reports on the question of, “Why Field an Ineligible Candidate,” similarly to another post I wrote here.

Leo’s response to the Kansas City Star below…

KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS IT WRONG.
Posted in Uncategorized on December 3, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS THE STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG.

Does the main stream media even know how to research a story any longer?  Or are they reporting the story wrong on purpose?  TheMSNBC fiasco by Pete Williams was bad enough when the report made it seem as if Berg’s law suit had been distributed for conference on December 5 along with mine.  It wasn’t.   Furthermore, people have reported back that their comments to that story which tried to correct the record were not allowed to be posted.  I guess the MSNBC policy is to make up stories now.  Just make it all up.  Is this case exposing major media mavens as propaganda ponies.  We report, you decide.

Now comes the Kansas City Star and reporter Rick Montgomery with another very misleading account of the case.  I phoned Mr. Montgomery this morning and left a relaxed message giving him the benefit of the doubt and offering to speak with him to correct the story should he be so inclined.  We will assume for now he was simply lazy and not assertive in his mistaken reporting.  There are three blatant mistakes in his piece.

MISTAKE 1: the headline is completely misleading on two fronts

“Anti-Obama bloggers challenge birthplace”

If Mr. Montogmery had done the slightest bit of research, he might have found my application now before the SCOTUS.  That application firmly argues that John McCain was not eligible to be President along with Roger Calero and Barack Obama.   Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run – and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run – with very harsh treatment.  McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in NIcaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.

Montgomery’s report fails to point any of this out opting for the more salacious headline.  The headline is bunk, but hopeful not intentional bunk.  We shall see.

MISTAKE 2: My lawsuit is not focused on challenging Obama’s place of birth.  I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, asserted my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.  My law suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least requested to see Obama’s BC.  That is not a core issue in my case.  And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue – that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen – even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject.

As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen “at birth”.  His own web site told me so.  Andfactcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948.  Montgomery cites factcheck.org as a “nonpartisan” source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at birth” trough his Father.  My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.

Here is what Montgomery said:

“In the outer cosmos of the blogosphere, the presidential election isn’t over.

Barack Obama, now busily forming his administration, isn’t just the wrong person to lead the nation, claim Web sites such as America Must Know and Right Side News.

He is, they contend, constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The argument is over his place of birth — Hawaii…”

Wow.  It never mentions the main argument of my law suit.  Nada.  Zippo.  Zilch.  Nothing about it.

MISTAKE 3:

Montgomery fails to get the facts of the Distribution for Conference of Dec. 5 right.  He fails to mention that the full Court distributed it for conference AFTER considering a refferal from Justice Thomas:

“One litigant’s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.

Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obama’s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.”

All he had to do was call the Public Information Office at the SCOTUS and they would have explained to him what the entries on my Docketmean.   As was reported by Bob Vernon of Honest American News and Plains Radio Network two days ago, Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference of December 5, 2008 after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral.  There has been multiple docket activity on my case this week.  One would think reporters would actually use the resources SCOTUS makes available to them.

No mention of Cort’s case by Montgomery and that it is now before Justice Scalia.

Montgomery mentions my site in his report, so I don’t know why he didn’t see all of this explained in my blogs below.  Hopefully he will fix the record.  There’s a place to comment on his report for those so inclined.

 

WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN MIS-STATES CORE ISSUE IN DONOFRIO SCOTUS CASE
Posted in Uncategorized on December 3, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

World Net Daily has organized a letter writing campaign to Fed Ex the SCOTUS utilizing the following headline at its web site:

“FED EX THE SUPREMES ABOUT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY”

I must draw attention to the fact that the article which solicits these letters has not educated the public to my case.  The actual text of the letter they are sending is fine, but the article which solicits participation is incorrect.  Here is what it says:

“Because the Supreme Court justices do not accept faxes, e-mails or telephone calls, there is only one way to make your voice heard in time for Friday’s preliminary hearing – overnight delivery of your letter.

Join more than 145,000 others in signing WND’s online petitioncalling for release of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office. This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern Time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.”

I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama can release a golden birth certificate signed by 100 gazzillion witnesses embossed in gold leaf that he was born on the mall in Washington DC and it still wouldn’t make him a “Natural Born Citizen” under the Constitution because he was, regardless of where he was born, a BRITISH citizen “at birth.”  Since he was “born” as a British citizen/subject, his United States citizenship was not “natural”.   World Net Daily has done a prior article where they did get it right, but at this crucial moment, two days before the SCOTUS meets, they are getting it wrong.

They article goes on to say:

“Farah launched a petition drive on WND two weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for fullpublic disclosure of the facts of Obama’s birthplace and parentage. More than 125,000 people have signed on to the petition in that time.”

There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His Mother Father was a British Citizen, and his Mother was a United States citizen.  Therefore, Obama was both a subject and citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen.   His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born.  Of course, the New Jersey Secretary of State, and the Secretaries of the several states should have asked to see his BC, and my law suit says that, but Obama is not eligible no matter where he was born.  And the World Net Daily letter campaign solicitation fails to point that out and as such it is doing harm to public awarenesss.

Here’s why: if Obama produces a genuine vault kept birth certificate from Hawaii that satisfies every possible requirement, many people will be under the mistaken impression that he is a natural born citizen.  World Net Daily needs to correct that solicitation and let its readers know that Obama is not eligible regardless of where he was born.

I must ask readers of this blog not to participate in that letter writing campaign unless and until World Net Daily corrects the solicitation.  I don’t believe this was an intentional error, but I must remain consistent.

 

[UPDATE 4:48 pm]

Rick Montgomery just called me from the Kansas City Star and admitted he wasn’t aware that my law suit was not centered on the birth certificate issue.   He was sincere and apologized for the way my case was described in the article.  You have to give him credit for that.  Apparently he received many calls today from readers of this blog.  I should also point out that his story does mention on page 2 that I brought McCain into the law suit.  My original blog below missed that, so I apologized to him in kind.  He said the headline which made it seem like the issue was directed at just Obama was out of his control.  Fair enough and proper respect for the phone call.  We may talk again later this week.

It is now located at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, primarily due to a spam alert on his previous blog.

-Phil

Attorney Leo C. Donofrio today posted an update on his site concerning the latest in the Chrysler Bankruptcy suit.

There is a PDF to Old Chrysler’s response to Donofrio/Pidgeon’s appeal and the subsequent reply brief.

-Phil

Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Subscribe via RSS feed and/or email updates

On Monday, January 4, Attorneys Stephen Pidgeon and Leo Donofrio requested that the bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York admit them pro hac vice; this request has been granted:

Steve Pidgeon and I were admitted today – Pro Hoc Vice – to practice before the Bankruptcy Court (Southern District of New York) for the Chrysler case.  See docket numbers 6192 and 6193.

Responses to our Rule 60 Motion (docket number 6132) are due January 15, 2010.

Here are the respective docket entries:

Docket #6193 – Document #1

Docket #6192 – Document #1

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, reports today that Cort Wrotnowski’s renewed Stay Application of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court Saturday, November 29, 2008.

Leo and Cort are now awaiting the docket to be formally updated (we know how that goes!).

Update: Leo said, “We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today.” That part is now there, and distributed to the Justices.

Below includes the full posting…

WROTNOWSKI V. CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE RENEWED TO JUSTICE SCALIA
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Today we are watching for the SCOTUS AUTOMATED Docket to be updated with two important developments, one in Cort’s case and one in mine.

We hope the docket will reflect that Cort Wrotnowski has renewed his application to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of this morning.  Cort’s application for an emergency stay and/or injunction was denied by the Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on November 26, 2008.  Cort sent it by Express mail on Saturday Nov. 29, 2008.

We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today.  This was sent via FED EX on Wed. Nov. 26 and was delivered on Friday Nov. 28 at 9:05 AM, but it still hasn’t been updated to the docket…see Fed ex tracking number 866846734555

I have a call in to a case manager as well as to a supervisor.  Hopefully the docket will be updated today.The supplemental brief only has one point, a discussion of Cort Wrotnowski’s case and a full disclosure to the SCOTUS that I helped Cort prepare his application.

Also, I will have another blog later today concerning the most recent update to the Donofrio v. Wells docket which hit the docket Nov. 28, but was backdated to Nov. 19.  That entry states that the application was referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.  This supplements the “DISTRIBUTED for Conference” entry and sheds some light on the issue.  What remains a mystery is why this was updated nine days late.

Check back later for full coverage.

After the Defendants made a footnoted accusation that the Plaintiffs in a Chrysler Bankruptcy case are so-called “birthers” (an accusation that is completely immaterial to the point of this case), one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Leo Donofrio, of the firm Pidgeon and Donofrio, blasted Judge Arthur Gonzalez’ opinion on his denial order as being “a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth (Dianna Cotter also reporting):”

The entire case against the rejected Chrysler dealers revolved on one simple answer given by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, when he was cross-examined by Dealer Counsel during the hearing to decide the fate of Chrysler.  Every other witness testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat requested that Old Chrysler reject the 789 Dealer franchise contracts.

Without a request by the lender (the US Government) or the purchaser (Fiat), there was no sound business judgment in Old Chrysler killing off 789 franchises.  This is because when a contract is rejected in bankruptcy, Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code kicks in and gives those rejected dealers an unsecured creditor claim against the estate.   In this case, it was undisputed that the claim would potentially reach one billion dollars.

Old Chrysler had a fiduciary duty to its other creditors not to burden the estate with this mammoth claim.   However, had a key party sought rejection of those franchise agreements as a condition precedent to the deal closing then the Court might have been justified to approve the rejections.  But no party ever testified that the dealer restructuring was a necessary condition precedent to the sale closing.

The New Chrysler management were free to trim the dealership network once they took over.  After they owned the company, they could deal with the dealers as they liked and as would have been governed by State franchise laws which protected the dealers.   And all of the evidence shows that Fiat was happy to take on the entire dealership network in the sale.   The decision to kill off 789 dealerships was entirely the brain collapse of Old Chrysler’s management.  Therefore, the issue to be decided by the Court was whether this decision was made in sound business judgment.

The entire dealer rejection issue then turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing.  If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts.  The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.

Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?

A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

(See May 27, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 352.)

It’s a very straightforward answer.   Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat.  Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where the American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free.  Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted.  Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.

But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era ofjudicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe.  Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case.  So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimonyand stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla alla Edger Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy.  Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.

Please compare and contrast Alatvilla’s testimony with Judge Gonzalez at Footnote 21 of the Gonzalez Rejection Opinion:

ALTAVILLA’S TESTIMONY

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?

A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

THE JUDGE GONZALEZ OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 21

21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”

Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative.Never, damn it.   This is a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth.   Any grammar school child can easily grasp that the witness clearly indicated restructuring was not a material difference to Fiat.  And if it was not a material difference to Fiat, 789 dealers and 40,000 jobs could have been saved while your Government gifted this American auto institution to a foreign national conglomerate with your own taxes.  That’s it in a nutshell, people.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

In our original Motion memorandum we gave Judge Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt and refrained from calling this fraud intentional – opting instead to allege only that the Court’s judicial ventriloquism exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth.   But on Friday Feb. 5, 2010 Judge Gonzalez denied our Motion by issuing a 25 page Opinion(docket no. 6341 – public docket appears down today) which condoned intentional fraud on the part of Chrysler’s attorneys – Jones Day – who repeated multiple falsehoods in their Response Brief which we thoroughly dismantled in our Reply.

Furthermore, in not correcting the error of Footnote 21, Judge Gonzalez is now also guilty of intentional fraud as well.  He’s chosen to defend Footnote 21 and in doing so he is simply lying to the American People which is obvious to any impartial observer of the facts.  Footnote 21 is simply a lie by a partial Judge.  It’s fraud plain and simple.

The Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio (site will soon be updated to include Leo Donofrio’s info) will be appealing to the Southern District of New York and we will be making multiple complaints to the New York Bar asking for sanctions against Jones Day and Judge Gonzalez.

Our lead client, James Anderer has been on Fox Business News about 40 times now and we are hoping to increase public awareness through the media of this fraud.  The Chrysler story is only now truly being understood for the fraud against the American way that it is.  Please stand with us as this battle is sure to intensify.   The disease we are fighting is at the core of the intended destruction of this nation’s natural sovereignty.

Understand that this battle is as important a fight as this nation will ever see.  It will define whether we are going to allow the judicial branch to openly lie to our faces.  If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever.  This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.

Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon represent 76 former Chrysler dealers.

See my highlighted coverage in my Chrysler Bankruptcy category.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy Examiner.com

For those of you who have left comments on my blog regarding America’s 21st President, Chester Arthur (you know who you are!), Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, will be donning his professor hat and explaining how President Arthur had been (and may continue to be) quite the scandal and detailing his research on all Presidents born to a parent or parents born abroad.

Here’s the essay…

PRESIDENT CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Later tonight, probably much later… I’ll publish my research on all Presidents born to a parent or parents born abroad.  I’ve conclusively established that, with the exception of Chester Arthur, every President – that wasn’t made eligible to POTUS under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause - was born on United States soil to parents who were both United States citizens.

As for Chester Arthur’s father William, we haven’t found the exact date he was naturalized, but we’ve found proof that President Chester Arthur lied about his father’s history, his mother’s history and his own age.  Why did he do that?  Well, it appears that William Arthur probably naturalized within months just before or just after President Chester Arthur was born in October 1829.   The 21st President clearly lied about his birthday, pushing it back a year to 1830.

For those of you who may find it hard to sleep tonight, grab a cup of tea and join me for a late night American history lesson and the unfolding of an eerily bizarre coincidental scandal involving Chester Arthur, our 21st President, and also a proven liar.  He was born in the United States, but allegations he wasn’t may have provided cover for another eligibility problem.

 
“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

December 5, 2008 – 5:34 am

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad.   As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States.   He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.  He just missed  out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.   Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

Both his parents, James Buchanan and Elizabeth Speer, emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783.  It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain.  Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States.   When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States.  No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified.  The Buchanans werecitizens of Pennsylvania and therefore citizens of the United States.   When their son James was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808.  Wiki has this on his father:

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County.  The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.”Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US.   But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born.   The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization.  The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as  a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable.   I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born.   (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England.  His father was a US citizen from Ohio.   Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship.   This act was enacted in 1855.  Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856.  He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874.  He was the 31st President.   His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen.  His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada.   They were married in 1870.  According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens – natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue.   Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Hoover was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad.   But there was absolutely no merit to the charge.  Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada.  Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1921.  They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized?  I don’t know.  The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book.  I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope.  No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802.  That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens.   Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824.  Chester was born in October 1829.  So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born.  William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child.  (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect.  Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive.   Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780.   Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer.   If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it.  We will revisit this later.   Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns.  But was he a villain to Arthur?  Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen.   It wasn’t true.  Chester was born in Vermont.   But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there.  This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.   So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight.  I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide.   He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived).   He moved his age back a year.  I think vanity is a poor excuse.   Only one year?  He lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized.  Think about the time period.  He ran for Vice-President in 1880.  His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible.  But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William.   Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.  Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen.  Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility.  And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency.   Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont,  between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born.  This is the most likely time period for his naturalization.  The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur.  Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had.  And he got away with it through his lies.  But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

Texasdarlin featured a commentary by Judah Benjamin on November 28 concerning Leo’s case, Donofrio v. Wells, as well as the “natural born citizen” issue.

The following is Leo’s commentary on the posting…

LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue.  While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion – that Obama is not eligible – I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”.  It is “national law” which is controlling.  I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above.  He has obviously done much research.  But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject”.

There are three mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens’.”

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

This leads to the second point of error.

SECOND MISTAKE:  Failure to properly analyze common law.

Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamin’s analysis.  Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.

People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized.  Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.

Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).

But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”.  At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.

The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” which Mr. Benjamin does quote but fails to mention the case citation, which is always important because it provides the reader the chance to see the context of the quote discussed.  And this is very important.  Here is what Benjamin quoted from Justice Swayne’s eloquent opinion:

“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:

‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “

And this appears to back Mr. Benjamin’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isn’t eligible.  The common law is not our national law.  Our national law is the Constitution.  We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.

And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible.  The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote.  Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:

“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129.  “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process.  To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power.  There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.  [**26]  Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1.  For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”.  If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.

Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.

But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that.  The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”.  And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law.  The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.

Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama – although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was.   I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law.  There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

The first of which is precedent.  In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

“The common law is gone.  The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5.  This was made clear by Madison’s article:

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

THIRD MISTAKE:  Quoted law is not accurate

This is not all that relevant to the discussion above but it should be corrected nonetheless.  Mr. Benjamin wrote:

“Under Chapter VI. Section 87, of the Constitution of Kenya Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, became a Kenyan citizen on December 12th 1963. This is a simple legal fact which cannot be denied. BHO II also became a Kenyan citizen on December 12th 1963 under Section 97. of the Kenyan Constitution.”

Actually, Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya under Section 87.2, not under Section 97.  You can have a look at the Kenyan Constitution here:

http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#87

CONCLUSION

All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic.  Please do not assume I am bashing him.  I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate.  And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.

Leo C. Donofrio