Archive for March, 2009

Donofrio Explains Vattel: Day 57 – March 18, 2009

March 18, 2009

Attorney Leo C. Donofrio bows out of Obama eligibility struggle once again…. Explains the importance of Vattel’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” and how Vattel’s theories influenced our framers…Donofrio to be on The Chalice Show radio program this evening…

Donofrio says on his blog today:

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”….

Donofrio can be heard on The Chalice Show radio program this evening and he says this will be the last we’ll be hearing from him for some time! The Chalice Show program notes give the following details:

On Wednesday, March 18 from 8-10 CDT, The Chalice Show will air on Patriot’s Heart Network. The special guest will be Leo Donofrio. He will discuss the technical legal aspects of the quo warranto statute as it applies to the Obama presidential eligibility controversy. He will also discuss breaking updates on the natural born citizen controversy. Please review Mr. Donofrio’s blog for complete background on these important issues.

Please tune in. Mr. Donofrio will be on for the entire 2 hours. To ask a question or discuss the issue with Leo and Chalice, the call-in number is (347) 215-6929.

Donofrio concludes his post with a plea for citizen action; Take a Stand he says:

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.

Stay tuned!

Swiss Political Theorist E. Vattel

Swiss Political Theorist E. Vattel

Advertisements

By What Warrant? (Quo Warranto): Day 45 – March 4, 2009

March 4, 2009

Leo Donofrio: Our Military Need Not Take on Obama Eligibility Challenge Burden. A New Approach Involving Non-Military Plaintiffs Seen as Key. Donofrio to Work with Atty Mario Apuzzo to Cooperate in New Effort. The Problem of Legal Standing has Stymied Earlier Efforts but it is Thought Civilian Plaintiffs Can Meet Test of Standing.

The ancient common law writ of Quo Warranto (Latin: By What Warrant?) at one time… functioned as a court order (or “writ”) to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”). (Source: Wikipedia)

In the United States today..The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level… and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.(Source)

Writing at Natural Born Citizen today, Leo Donofrio announces, in a very public way, his decision to work with New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo to further challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Using the above referenced tactic of Quo Warranto they hope to avoid the usually fatal error of lack of standing of various plaintiffs in previous actions. *Standing is described at one source as:

…the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

The establishment of standing has been the stumbling block so far, and with respect to the military plaintiffs, their speaking out has brought the possibility of courts martial. The new approach by Donofrio and Apuzzo is designed to involve civilian plaintiffs who can, one hopes, show the necessary standing. This must sound hopelessly obscure to the layperson, and I am surely one of those. Donofrio lays out his explanation for this new course and one must go to his blog for a fuller explanation. About the situation for military plaintiffs, many of whom are involved with the Orly Tait action, Donofrio says:

If you are an active military person who is thinking of joining an action in Quo Warranto, please refrain form doing so until you have read the pending brief I will publish here.

Attorney Apuzzo and I will be working together on this public awareness campaign. I am very encouraged to have found another attorney who lives near me and who I believe in. I was very impressed by his intellect as to the various nuances of this intricate field of law. I believe we will both learn from each other and together provide a more powerful perspective and education to the public as well as presenting the best possible pro bono legal action on behalf of any potential plaintiffs.

*there are three requirements for Article III standing: (1)injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a)concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

A lengthy and informative study of constitutional standing by Stephen L. Winter, titled “The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance” (1987) may be read here.

[C]onstitutional standing [is] … a word game played by secret rules…. Characterized neither by the private rights model of the seven common law forms of action nor by the “injury-in-fact” paradigm of modern standing doctrine, these matters took forms astonishingly similar to the “standingless” public action or “private attorney general” model that modern standing law is designed to thwart..

New Obama Eligibility Challenge

Eligibility Movement About Love Not Hate: Day 43 – March2, 2009

March 2, 2009

….that’s Love as in Love of Country and Reverence for Our Constitution, NOT Hatred for Barack Obama. The Left is attempting to smear those concerned about Obama’s eligibility as irrational conspiracy theorists. They are So Wrong! The Issue is not going away; Today’s AOL and Politico Headline the story…

AOL News: The Birthers Continue to Hound Obama
The Politico: Culture of Conspiracy. The Birthers

At The Politico Ben Smith writes:

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president of the United States…..The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory — that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t —as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

The issue is hardly out of the gaze of the mainstream…media, it has been in plain sight all along. But the mainstream, and most of the conservative, media have chosen to ignore the most severe constitutional crisis since the Civil War. We must mark 2008 as the year journalism in the United States died. The press has become, in the words of Leo Donofrio, The Propaganda Ponies of the Fourth Estate.

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. (see Natural Born Citizen)

So much for the mainstream media.Most of the conservative media will not touch the eligibility issue because they fear being smeared as kooks and nut cases. Some Republicans are so desperate to find a suitable candidate to revive the party’s fortunes that they wish the natural born citizen requirement would go away so they can nominate a non natural born citizen; i.e. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; born of Indian immigrant parents who naturalized after his birth. Governor Schwarzenegger, who would love to be President, at least had the good sense to acknowledge that he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible unless, and until, a constitutional amendment is passed negating the natural born citizen requirement of our Presidents.

The eligibility issue did come up, albeit briefly, at the past weekend’s CPAC gathering in Washington. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media:

Judging by the applause, a large portion of the audience was not outraged by the remarks.

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...and the President before taking office swears the following oath…“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S.Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..