Donofrio final

This material comes from the web site of Leo Donofrio. His web site is here and contains a mammoth amount of material. I have isolated only his research on the 'natural born at birth' in an effort to make it as easy as possible for Americans to understand the issue. It is presented from his first writings to his last as of this date.

Leo also gave me permission to put some of his material (court briefs) on audio; it is free for anyone to listen and learn:

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA

[UPDATE - 6:20 PM Sat. Dec. 13, 2008]: Just became aware of Plains Radio’s gross statements regarding Barack Obama’s health. Leo Donofrio will not be on Plains Radio again.

[UPDATE - 11:10 AM Sat. Dec 13, 2008]: Yesterday, a SCOTUS clerk told Cort his decision wouldn’t be released untill Monday. This was at approximately 11:00 AM while the Justices were still behind closed doors.

Tonight I will publish a point by point breakdown explaining why the application I prepared for Cort’s brief was so much stronger than the one in my own.]

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection. McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama’s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a “natural born citizen” by the Constitution.

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will. He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.

IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.

The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues. I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails. But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger. And the candidates knew that.

I suppose they’ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next. But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)

There it is. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii. I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site. I said that over and over, but they’re still lying about my position. Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is the truth now part of a conspiracy?

Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama’s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law.

The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It’s an argument that fails - if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.

My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. It’s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.

The people are subservient to the Document and if we don’t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.

Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.

But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it’s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists. All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published. It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries.

“Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,” they squawk. Me so crazy. Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn’t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue. And that’s the only issue before the Honorable Court.

That being said, let’s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term “natural born Citizen” as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are “citizens”.

I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it’s quite the opposite. Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

I understand the countering argument and I’ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog. But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven’t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded

[My interview tonight on The Chalice Show - 9:05 -11:00 EST - will be the last you're going to hear from me on this issue for some time.]

The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office. I call him President because he is President - under our Constitution - unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible. That is the only venue of review currently available under the law.

The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US). Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”.

In parts 1, 2 and 3 of my quo warranto legal brief, I laid the case out for the various processes under the District of Columbia Code available to law enforcement officials as well as private plaintiffs and attorneys. So far, not a single “eligibility advocate” has used the statute - the only national law which uses the word “usurper” in its very text. As they scream usurper at Obama, they patently ignore the only statute empowered to remove him. And yet the “donate” buttons keep getting pushed. And those cases continue to be rightfully dismissed.

I am not a carnival barker or circus aficionado. The law I write about is that of legal fact not fanciful fiction based on clumsy metaphorical wordplay meant to confuse. When I write about the law, that writing is grounded in the Constitution, statutes and SCOTUS interpretations as precedent. If the law makes it hard for me to find a path to justice, I do not go about blasting justice away for the sake of getting the result I want.

To commit blasphemy against the Constitution’s separation of powers would be a sin against justice. True enemies of the Constitution care not if they destroy it by installing an ineligible president or if they destroy it by seeing him removed unconstitutionally. If your ultimate intention is to destroy the Constitution, both results are a win for you.

- US Attorney Taylor stood up to Monica Goodling and caused her to be investigated when she improperly tried to bring political influence upon Taylor’s hiring of a certain US Attorney.

- US Attorney Taylor prosecuted Blackwater stating public outrage that Blackwater operatives had illegally fired on Iraqi civilians. After they plead guilty to 14 counts of manslaughter Taylor said, “We are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war…”

- US Attorney Taylor recently raided the Office of Technology a week after the head of that office was appointed by Obama as Chief Information Officer.

Mr. Kundra has taken a leave of absence while that scandal plays out. When the story first broke on March 12, I noticed some references to US Attorney Taylor having been in charge of the raid. The next day, March 13, I released my open letter to US Attorney Taylor. That evening I could not find anymore references to US Attorney Taylor’s involvement. Was his name scrubbed from Google news searches? The only reference I could find there was the actual Government press release. Notice it’s on US Attorney Taylor’s letterhead.

While I don’t think AG HOLDER would be representing Obama in a quo warranto, since QW doesn’t challenge any official Government activity, I believe now that AG Holder does, in fact, have a conflict of interest. If Obama is removed then - according to the precedent regarding Mr. Shields and Mr. Galatin in the Senate (see QW legal brief part 2) - the election would be void, Obama would be stricken from official POTUS history and it would be as if he were never president. This would probably also void Obama’s appointments. AG Holder could lose his job. This creates a new conflict of interest issue.

Unless you make EVERY effort to be heard then you will never know if justice was at your fingertips. How much do you believe in this issue? Back in the 60’s when civil rights were being denied, the people came to Washington… a million man march. The law was changed and history with it. There is power available to you. Stop being so defeated. Stop depending on charlatans. Use your mind. Think for yourself. Don’t believe Leo Donofrio. Do your damn homework. I have provided you with the research materials. Use them.

If you don’t have the support of the people, the Government will not listen. You need to assemble peacefully and be heard. If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t be heard. It’s that simple. Go get the people. Bring them to Washington DC. Be heard.

Those who believe this issue needs to be resolved are being divided and surely will be conquered. You may choose truth or you may choose lies. The comments to each blog post here contain virtually every possible argument you will face. And each has been dissected and destroyed by the full light of the truth written here. You are intellectually armed with knowledge to go forward and be heard.

The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent - the father - is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work.. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.

And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:

According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.

President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whether he was born in Hawaii or not.

I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.

I offer the following two points regarding the natural born citizen legal issue to prove that there is convincing evidence, by way of authority and precedent, for citizens to be concerned that the Constitution has been circumvented by Obama’s holding office regardless of whether he was born in the United States. I do not expect to sway you to act on the basis of these points. I simply hope that you will see that, despite media attempts to paint all questions as to Obama’s eligibility as conspiracy theories, the core issue is not a conspiracy theory. It is a question of legal interpretation never decided by any court of law.

The argument most often tendered to support the position that Obama is eligible to be President (assuming he was born in Hawaii) suggests that any person who - by virtue of being born on US soil - becomes a US citizen would therefore be qualified to hold the offie of President. However, this argument would not even be competent for judicial consideration according to the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison wherein Marshall stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citizen” then the Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen clause would be rendered superfluous and would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

Prior to Obama’s taking office, no post grandfather clause President or Vice President had ever openly held office after having been born subject to the jurisdiction of another nation’s laws. The following two points are an introduction to the great body of authority which touches the issue, but they are by no means exhaustive.

POINT II: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House of Representatives on March 9, 1866:

The 14th Amendment was interpreted by Justice Horace Gray for the holding of the US Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-102(1884), as follows:

“The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other…Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…” (Emphasis added.)

Fourteen years later, Justice Horace Gray did a complete about face on this issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) although the holding in the Elk case was not reversed. Regardless, the direct holding in Wong Kim Ark was restricted to the children of foreign parents permanently domiciled in the United States. Barack Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the United States. I urge you to read both decisions in light of the following recent historical discovery.

POINT III: The recent historical revelation that Chester Arthur was a usurper to the office of President.

Chester Arthur faced an identical scandal as Barack Obama when Arthur ran for Vice President. It was alleged he had been born in Canada or Ireland and that he was a British subject at birth and therefore wasn’t eligible to be President. Recently, my research team discovered, via the official New York State naturalization record of Chester Arthur’s father - available at the Library of Congress - that his father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur was born. So, at the time of his birth, Chester Arthur was a British subject due to his father’s heritage and failure to be naturalized before Chester Arthur was born even though history has proved Chester Arthur was actually born in Vermont.

Our research also proved that Chester Arthur actively concealed this fact by blatantly lying about his parental heritage in various interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper at the time he was running for VP. (See articles at my blog.)

This is an important revelation because it establishes that Barack Obama is the first President in our national history who - at the time of his birth - was openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation. The issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person’s citizenship will be considered “natural born” for the rest of our nation’s history.

Allowing this issue to avoid judicial interpretation will forever raise questions to President Obama’s title to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become President and Commander in Chief.

It’s important to note that Justice Horace Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur and Gray’s mysterious and complete about face from Elk to Wong Kim ArkWong Kim Ark appears to sanitize, for history, the illegitimacy of Chester Arthur as President, the man who appointed Justice Horace Gray to the United States Supreme Court. must be re-examined in the light of revelations concerning Chester Arthur’s secret since

Regardless, I must reiterate that I am not writing to convince you to take a position as to whether President Obama is actually eligible for the office of President. I am writing to beg that you bring an action in quo warranto so that the issue will be resolved once and for all which must be in the best interest of the nation.

<>[The above letter is being sent via certified mail and e mail to Jeffrey Taylor, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The same letter will also be sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.]

SECTION TWO

December 4, 2008

PRESIDENT CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

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

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;

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.

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvania. His father James Buchanan 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 were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

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.

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

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.

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.

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, Chester Arthur 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 1821. 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.

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.

“…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.

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.

“…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.

“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.

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.

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk.. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.

Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference. 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. He 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 in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim - that Arthur was born abroad - while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.

I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.

I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine from the Brooklyn public library.

Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially 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 not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Chester Arthur lied 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 virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.

And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

A LITTLE MORE ON CHESTER ARTHUR FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Yesterday, after Cort filed the supplemental brief at the Supreme Court, we dropped by the Library of Congress and took a look at the index of papers for Chester Arthur. (Please see previous report.) Compared to most of the other Presidents, there’s barely anything on Chester. The index is a skinny little pamphlet, thirteen pages long. The introduction to the index begins with a letter from Chester A. Arthur III:

“You may be sure that I am as interested as you are in having the Arthur papers finally come to rest in the Library of Congress. The ones that I have in my possession have traveled a good deal — over to Europe, back to Colorado, California, and now here. During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them — not even me. When they finally came into my possession. I was amazed that there were so few…

Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather’s First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.”

It’s quite a dramatic start for a Library of Congress index document. The intrigue continues as follows:

“For many years President Arthur was represented in the Manuscript Division by a single document… Beginning in 1910 and continuing to the present, successive chiefs of the division have done what they could do to assemble surviving Arthur manuscripts. For the first of these chiefs, Gaillard Hunt, who in that year intitiated the search for the main body of Arthur Papers, there was little but discouragement as a result of his inquiries. However, his persistence and what he was able to learn were to encourage his successors.

He wrote first to Col. William G. Rice and learned the address of Mrs. John E. McElroy, Arthur’s sister and official hostess during his administration. Mr. Hunt wrote to her and learned from her that Chester A. Arthur, Jr., controlled the papers. After several attempts, Mr. Hunt learned Mr. Arthur’s address and wrote to him. The reply — written on March 13, 1915, five years after the search began — provided the first concrete but frustrating evidence:

‘I beg you will excuse my tardiness in replying to your letter of November 4th [1914]. The question of my father’s papers is a very sore subject with me.

‘These papers were supposed to be in certain chests which were stored on their receipt from Washington, in the cellar of 123 Lexington Avenue. After my father’s death, they were removed, I believe, by direction of the executors to a store house recommended by Mr. McElroy at Albany. Several years ago on making my residence in Colorado, I sent for these chests of papers and found in them nothing but custom house records of no particular value or importance. Where the papers they were supposed to contain have vanished, is a mystery.’ “

WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW

PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED - WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING

[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES COVERAGE OF DONOFRIO AND WROTNOWSKI SCOTUS CASES

Tom Ramstack of The Washington Times has made consistent attempts to report accurately on the SCOTUS cases - Donofrio v. NJ Secretary of State and Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State. Of all the main stream media coverage, Ramstack’s has been the most accurate.

But there are a couple of things I need to clarify about his last two reports from a purely legal standpoint. The issues involved in these cases are not easy to report accurately. Most of the reporters are not lawyers and if not a lawyer they are truly at a disadvantage and must really strive to lock down understanding of each key phrase as whole worlds of meaning change on even tiny discrepancies.

On the same day the Supreme Court declined to hear one appeal challenging Barack Obama’s right to become president because of questions about his citizenship, Justice Antonin Scalia distributed another appeal on the same issue for the court to consider.

The new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, is scheduled to be discussed by the justices at their Dec. 12 private conference. They plan to decide whether to give the case a hearing - again on whether the British citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father makes the president-elect ineligible to assume the office…

“Cort’s application before [the Supreme Court] incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it,” Mr. Donofrio said on his blog.

The report should have stressed that, according to Obama, his birth status as a British citizen was “governed” (Obama’s Fight The Smears’ choice of words) by Great Britain in that Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth, not just his father.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”

That’s a rather absurd statement. Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all. If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it. But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine. Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court. Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:

No. 07A638

Title:

Ate Kays Company, Applicant

Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.

Docketed:

Lower Ct:

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008	Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008	Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia. —————

No. 7A421

Michigan, Applicant

Corey Ramone Frazier

Docketed:

Lower Ct:

Supreme Court of Michigan

Case Nos.:

(131041)


Nov 20 2007	Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens.
Nov 20 2007	Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens.
Nov 28 2007	Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Nov 28 2007	Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.

Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer who filed the case, argued that Mr. Obama had British citizenship when he was born, thus disqualifying him from being president under the Constitution’s requirement of being a “natural-born citizen.”

“My case is done,” he said. “I’m perfectly comfortable with their decision.”

Preventing Mr. Obama from becoming president was less of a consideration for him than ensuring constitutional law is followed, he said.

“I’m not worried about Barack Obama, I’m worried about the precedent of law,” Mr. Donofrio said. “This sets a precedent for someone who doesn’t have a tie to this country” to become president…

Fair coverage again. But it appears as if I intended to imply that Obama had no tie to this country. I didn’t mean that. And to Mr. Ramstack’s credit, we did discuss this exact quote. I told him people might mis-understand. He was confident otherwise. And I let it go because I felt like I might be bullying him in that I parsed over multiple statements in his original draft of the story when he called me to verify the statements before going to print. I was deeply gratified that he took the time and effort to make sure the story was accurate.

I meant to convey that a person - born to a father who is an alien and who remains an alien not residing here - would probably have a tie to whatever country his father is from. For example, as to Obama, in 1963 his British citizenship transferred to Kenya, and while he may have dropped his dual national status at the age of 21, the influence of that country and his tie thereto are self evident.

I take personal responsibility for any confusion on this issue. I should have been more vigilant.

This is why it’s so difficult for news reports to accurately convey legal issues. Every word is so important. I cannot stress that enough.

SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” -…(snipped by Ed. 03.03.09)

~~They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball and get hit.~~

[I apologize to the Honorable Court for making the above statement. The statement was an emotional response not grounded in facts or law. 03.03.09]

I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case. Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this. Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October. I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit.

~~I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue.~~

As I’ve stated in comments to my last blog (which was satire people), you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court. You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.

But, out of respect for Steve’s effort and the overall confusion this case has caused on the natural born citizen issue, I’ve written the following explanation thereto in the hope that the current court will receive no historical cover from Wong Kim Ark as none is due.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“

[UPDATE: 12:11 PM ...(thanks to reader "rossalgondamer" for pointing out the following). The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a " natural born citizen" - as I've stated in the original post here - but the reader points out that the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a "citizen" at all.

I will add to the reader's comment by pointing out that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor, but Minor doesn't really support the holding in Wong Kim Ark, it's just that Gray's opinion makes it look like it does.

US History desperately needs to consider whether Justice Gray's appointment by Chester Arthur infected the opinion he wrote in Wong Kim Ark, since that opinion looks more and more dodgy every day in that it has the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur's citizenship problems as to POTUS eligibility since his father was not naturalized until Chester was 14, as we recently discovered, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth, just like Obama. ]

For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of whether each person was a “citizen”.

But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor. And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”.

There’s a clear distinction made in the Wong Kim Ark case between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”. Justice Gray’s majority opinion said Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen” but went no further than that. He cleverly evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen” although a lazy reader of the case might come away with the wrong impression. (Intentional?) Since Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, they were able to punt:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.)

They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.

I have stated over and again that the Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t.

And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”, or, as the Court in Minor discussed, whether such persons are even “citizens”.

Certainly, since Minor came down in 1873 and the Supreme Court then refused to confirm or deny whether persons born in the US to foreign parents were even citizens, then at the time Chester Arthur ran for Vice President in 1880, the issue of whether he was even a citizen was in doubt. The issue of whether he was a “natural born citizen” therefore leaves no doubt. He wasn’t, and either is Obama. But this isn’t the same United States. Back then we had a Constitution. Now we don’t.

Those “doubts” mentioned in Minor needed to be discussed and adjudicated by the current supreme court. ~~But they didn’t have the right stuff to take the issue on. And that makes them neither supreme nor even willing to live up to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.~~

Shame on them. Shame on this court who lacked the courage to do their job by taking on this tough issue and having it out in open court. Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied.

Instead of respecting the citizens who took time, money and risk to bring these actions, those citizens were subjected to the most bizarre clerical behavior this lawyer of seventeen years has ever seen or could ever imagine.

~~This current supreme court is a blasphemy to justice. They have no honor. They disgust me in every fiber of my being, a sick joke to a sick country in their silly robes and ruffles.~~

Neither Obama nor McCain was eligible. Calero was obviously not eligible having been removed from the ballots in five states.

The Secretaries of several States claim no authority to remove names from ballots or to determine who is eligible to be President, but five of them did just that as to Calero. He was the official Socialist Workers Party candidate for President, but the party was forced to remove his name and substitute that of James Harris in five states.

McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation. Calero was born in Nicaragua.

Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days

See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/

The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.

Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 20, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.

Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.

Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants' answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.

Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com