Posts Tagged ‘u s military resists usurpation’

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 Issue Ignored by Those Who Know: Day 28 – Feb 16, 2009

February 19, 2009

Who else knows about the Barack Obama ineligibility besides Obama himself? There are many influential people in media and politics who know, or at least believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified for President. These people, and I will name a few, will not touch the issue: The list most prominently features Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and possibly the Clintons. Why?

Let’s start with Obama who knew, as a self-professed constitutional scholar that he was not eligible. His own campaign website acknowledged his dual citizenship. Then, there are the stories about his Indonesian citizenship:

An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama’s biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia. That would not necessarily disqualify Obama to run for president, but it could raise loyalty concerns.

As for Limbaugh, Hannity, and others J.R.Dieckmann at Renew America writes:

… talk radio commentators are afraid to talk about it. Rush Limbaugh stated that he is not sure if it “passes the smell test,” and Sean Hannity has not even mentioned it as far as I know except when a caller brought it up. Hannity remarked that he didn’t know enough about it and moved to another topic.

Hannity may be restricted by his bosses, but Rush is the CEO of his own broadcasting network and has nothing to fear except the possible loss of some of his franchise radio stations across the country which carry his show. Rush is known for facing down any amount of political pressure or politician so he must have his own reasons for not giving it credibility on the air. Privately, I suspect Limbaugh takes this matter very seriously but he has two relatives on the bench; Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. and other friends who may have advised him to avoid the subject until the issue is officially in the hands of the courts.

Turning to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) we find an in depth article about his reluctance to speak out at Citizen Wells blog:

There are several reasons why Obama is not eligible to be president.
However, most if not all congressmen were aware of numerous lawsuits
challenging Obama’s eligibility beginning with Philip Berg’s on
August 21, 2008. Many mistakenly stated that the lawsuits were
dismissed for lack of merit. That is patently false. However, since
the congressmen were aware of the lawsuits, they were also aware
that obama had employed an army of attorneys and spent enormous
amounts of resources to avoid proving that he was eligible.

That is the real smoking gun.

This is the reason that minimally, Congress should have demanded that
Obama prove that he was qualified. A single congressman could have
initiated this query before or when Congress convened to certify the
Electoral votes.

Not a single congressman stepped forward.

Congressman Ron Paul knew that there were serious issues surrounding
Obama’s eligibility. Congressman Ron Paul, who speaks of upholding
the US Constitution.

Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”

I believe Congressman Paul’s response is typical of the position
of the entire Congress. However, Mr. Paul, we expected more from
you.

Ron Paul on Patriotism

Ron Paul on Patriotism

We conclude with a quote for the day; this one from Citizen Wells on Twitter:

“Technically Obama will not have to be impeached since he will not be president.

Standard prosecution should suffice.”

Obama Eligibility Taboo in Media

An Air Force Officer Speaks Out: Day 14 – Feb 2, 2009

February 2, 2009

From: Dr. David A. Earl- Graef LtCol. USAFRDate: 1 Feb 2009,

Dear Senator Warner,

I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can’t express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.

The requirement to be a “Natural Born” citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.

To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits…. (more…)