See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: ABC News Gets The Donofrio SCOTUS Story Wrong
Source:
Leo Donofrio's Blog
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... e-donofrio-scotus-story-wrong/
Published: Dec 4, 2008
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2008-12-04 15:38:11 by bluegrass
Ping List: *Tracking Comrade Obama* Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*
Keywords: None
Views: 1925
Comments: 96
Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News. The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote, “The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.” The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen. Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that. And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008. That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court. There are two docket entries for Nov. 19. One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court. The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court. She will set you and your story straight. The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court. There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference. In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action. There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled “A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States” http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon. On page 3, it states: Now go back and check the docket url for my case. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm Another misleading element of your story is the headline. The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status. Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen. But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President. So, your headline is wrong as well as your story. If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is. My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case. After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report. We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission. I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them. Regards, Leo C. Donofrio
You may find it here:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-49) not displayed.
.
.
.
#50. To: Old Friend (#45)
As I said, educate yourself and get back to me. Here's a hint, assuming you can use google: yockey nuremberg
Nah. I wanted you to post something from him. But if you don't want to that's ok too.
Looks like they finally did. But hey, if they're not bound by law, neither are we.
I know. Using google is REALLY hard.
Oh yes it is much to complicated for me.
It's like you are channeling Jesus. As you know, he wasn't exactly appreciative or respectful when it came to the Pharisees, Sadducees and the other contemporary 'teachers of the law'. He represented a way higher law and he used to call those good people 'hypocrites' every time he had a chance. So, can we say that the Birth Cetificatists are today's Pharissees, the 'Obama is of the British Royal family' guys are the Sadducees and the Alan Keys/Thomas faction are the 'teachers of the law'? They all wanted to kill Jesus.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
According to the story, Jesus was dead three days after throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple. Let me know when St. Bracko takes on the Lords of Money. Thus far, he's been dancing to their tune and living on their dime.
Obama didn't make it to the temple yet. But Jesus challenged his doubters to take the temple down and he was going to rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus also advised his followers to spare no expense on him and provide him with all the luxuries while they still had him.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Seriously, let me know when Obama goes up against the bankers instead of being their trained monkey.
What's wrong with the bankers again? I forgot.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
As I said to the other ignoramus on this thread: Educate yourself and get back to me. I'm not going to waste my time on you.
Okay, so there's nothing wrong with 'the bankers' but it sounds 'really good' to say it. Yes? Do you have a bank account?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
As long as they get your dancing chimp in office, I suppose not.
The place where bluegrass keeps his dough is a cracker box run by small-timers like you and me compared to the professional thieves who blackmail Congress into forking out unaccounted for trillions of bucks which we don't have so they can fly off to San Diego resorts for $200 toe jobs. A more crooked class of parasites has never fastened down upon our body politic and finances since the day we declared ourselves a republic. I hope they choke.
If songs were money, I'd be a millionaire. : )
Keep on wishing. He was born in the U.S. Therefore he is a naturalized citizen.
Naturalized citizens can't be president. Only natural born citizens. Obama isn't a natural born citizen.
Another typical racist punk aren't you? I bet you are so proud that you can hide behind your keyboard and make such sick, childish remarks aren't you?
Natural born. Read the Revised Code. By the way, you are a punk.
Right. Obama admits that he was born with dual citizenship. That's not a natural born citizen.
Read the law. A person born with dual citizenship who is born in the U.S. is still a natural born citizen. And while you airheads whine about this propaganda the country gets dragged further into the gutter and destroyed. I now understand how communist countries and dictatorships come about - ignorant people like you who are distracted by the propaganda and refuse to see the important issues. You are a wanna-be commie leader's dream.
Show me the law.
don't waste my time. If you can't read what I posted then go outside and play.
Nothing about dual citizenship comes up in what you posted. Cite the specific law stating that someone born a dual citizen is a natural born citizen.
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; # Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg ================================================================================= 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'. ================================================================================= " The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cg...ourt=us&vol=307&invol=325 United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)[12]. In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method[13] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.
Sounds like a good idea. First wise thing you have said yet on this thread.
God is always good!
In both PERKINS v. ELG and Steinkauler, citizenship went through the father, not the mother. As Obama's father was a foreign national, Obama's not a natural born citizen. Look, we both know that SCOTUS is going to rubberstamp the Obaminator. I hold Power's feet to fire no matter who they are. Others seem to enjoy carrying their water.
when she was born the parents were not U.S. citizens. The decision was based on the fact that she was born in the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Face it, even if Obama to the most minute detail was not a natural citizen he is still going to be inaugurated. There is nothing that can be done. If you want to be this technical then Barry Goldwater didn't qualify and a few others who ran for the Presidency also didn't qualify.
To repeat, we both know that. It will cause a mini-civil war, which is probably a large part of the operation. His banker pals love chaos. I have no doubt that the Obaminator would look forward to a little disorder also to feed his narcissistic hunger for chaos. The time to buy is when the streets are running with blood, to quote a Rothschild.
FROM FREEDOM TO FEAR: THE DIALECTIC OF CHANGE Nancy Levant December 6, 2008 Americans wanted change. At least…so we were told. From this to that – in whatever forms taken – Americans called for change. Crashing markets, jobs lost, homes lost, credit withdrawn, credit destroyed – and all coupled with the Patriot Act, the new homeland militaries, new and impending global wars, and the removal of privacy through technological mastery – the dialectical stage has been perfected for social chaos, which is the reality and the backbone of our change forthcoming. And true to form, the “great sacrifice” that has been called for will indeed be great. Truth be told, the freedom we believed in has been incrementally eroded for many decades – decades nearing one century. But having been side-tracked by media and educational propaganda for 80+ years, American people experience ignorance in the mainstream, and equally they have experienced coordinated dialectical separations that are both remarkable and devastating. Race, gender, religious, occupational, and educational splits that were politically motivated to weaken our loyalty and nationality to country and to each other, now exist to strengthen the new powers that be – powers that call for governmental dictatorship, homeland military intervention, and global economic enforcement – all to ensure the permanent division between the haves and have nots. The dialectic is about wealth – who has it, and who never will. The dialectic is about constant history – the powerful few who take from the many and rule with brute force. We are told that we will pay to bail out corporate powers. We were not asked to help. Our money was taken and given to further grow corporate power. We have global taxes pending, and we will pay those taxes, as well. We will serve in global wars for decades to come, and our children will be disallowed higher education unless they serve upon command. We will all become part of the civilian labor forces through mandated community service, which used to be for criminals. And we will be steadfastly imprisoned by our “communities” as the right to mobility will continue to diminish. And as the new powers all stand firmly against the right to keep and bear, international and national laws will continue to disarm this country – in one way or another. And this is the change forthcoming – albeit no change whatsoever exists. History simply, tragically, repeats once again. Let us assume that great change is upon us, although it will not be the change that the hopelessly naïve had in mind. It will not resemble ideal freedom for anyone minus the very, very few in very, very high places. It will not resemble equality, fairness, justice – nor will it allow for the brilliance of creative opinion or the balancing of power. Change will come through terror, military might, continuing propaganda, strife, economic loss and weakness, joblessness, hunger, sickness, and all other forms of persuasive powerlessness. Change will come by force just as it always has. Today, we are Communitarian people. We live, act, think, and believe according to community standards, which actually mean that we are truly and remarkably without opinion or options for opinion. Just as in closed and gated communities, we now live according to new law rule books assembled and published by our elected and appointed change agents. They do not govern of, for, or by the standards of the people. Dialectically, we now live according to their government of invention and intervention – the government that serves their collective powers of total collective wealth. So, continue to turn in your great grandparents’ gold rings and watches for cash. Great sacrifice is called for when your children are hungry and your homes are foreclosed. Sign up for military service. Maybe you can serve in Afghanistan’s poppy fields or maybe right at home in the new homeland military. Maybe when something horrific once again happens in America, you can help feed and water the many, many more homeless and hopeless American people. And then think of what has been lost - what we once were and stood for as a nation. And then, remember that the change you called for was actually never, ever called for by anyone – minus your politicians and their appointees. Remember that you never, ever called for even one Executive Order, Presidential Directive, or Signing Statement. Remember that you still don’t even know what they are or how they came to be. Remember that everything that now exists was not your doing, and that you are completely, totally, and tragically without representation. You are Communitarians, and you have no idea what that means, either. Chaos impends. All signals and Executive Orders, new military and paramilitary organizations, Acts and technologies, pandemics and super viruses, destroyed economies, mass joblessness, mandatory community service, and, of course, terrorism, point to great change forthcoming – all predicated, based upon, built upon, and necessitated by the fact that we have opted to go from freedom to fear. And one more thing, the change you hoped for didn’t pan out with the new Cabinet appointees. You will find Harvard, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the U.N., and, of course, the Clintons. This is not change. This is the global status quo that made the very last fragments of freedom actually illegal.
Quit spamming with cut and paste. If you're down with an usurper taking office, just admit it.
If it is too complex for you to understand then don't read it. It is exactly what is happening and has been happening in the U.S. for at least 28 years.
So you admit that the Obaminator is a tool.
'Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords'--Pompey the Great. This is the governments response to us..
Okay, sweetpea, did you actually read what you posted in Nancy Levent's piece??
What are you asking about? Why would I post it if I didn't read it?
Might is Right is all that any statophile knows.
I think our confused friend believes that the piece doesn't apply to Obama.
Yeah, okay, 'confused' discribes it..
What you mean is I am not stupid enough like some to have fallen for the propaganda scam. I am concerned with real issues. It makes me laugh that because I have not bought into the birth certificate BS that you think I am an Obama supporter. You are about as dumb as they come. Face it, you and those like you get suckered into the BS scams that draw attention from the real issues. I am not willing to fall for that kind of BS. Besides, I'd be willing to bet most of your issue with somebody like Obama has nothing to do with their politics or agenda but just the color of their skin. Again, if you take the time to read Nancy's article you will see where she brings that issue to the reader's attention. You are a prime candidate for any kind of government or political propaganda.
Wanting to concentrate on genuine issues that have an impact on the future of our country as opposed to the BS issues manufactured by those like Rove, Atwater, Kristol and that bunch makes me confused? LOL. Then yes I am confused and glad I am not easily suckered and taken in by BS propaganda.
Comments (91 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#51. To: bluegrass (#50)
#52. To: Esso (#47)
that pesky Constimuhtooshun
#53. To: Old Friend (#51)
#54. To: bluegrass (#53)
#55. To: bluegrass (#52)
(Edited)
But hey, if they're not bound by law, neither are we.
#56. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#55)
They all wanted to kill Jesus.
#57. To: bluegrass (#56)
#58. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#57)
(Edited)
#59. To: bluegrass (#58)
#60. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#59)
#61. To: bluegrass (#60)
#62. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#61)
so there's nothing wrong with 'the bankers'
#63. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#61)
Do you have a bank account?
#64. To: randge (#63)
bluegrass keeps his dough
#65. To: bluegrass (#23)
#66. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#65)
Therefore he is a naturalized citizen.
#67. To: Old Friend (#25)
#68. To: bluegrass (#66)
#69. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#68)
Natural born.
#70. To: bluegrass (#69)
#71. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#70)
Read the law.
#72. To: bluegrass (#71)
#73. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#72)
#74. To: bluegrass (#73)
(Edited)
#75. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#72)
don't waste my time. If you can't read what I posted then go outside and play.
#76. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#74)
#77. To: bluegrass (#76)
#78. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#77)
he is still going to be inaugurated.
#79. To: bluegrass (#78)
#80. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#79)
#81. To: bluegrass (#80)
#82. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#81)
#83. To: bluegrass (#71)
Show me the law.
#84. To: bush_is_a_moonie, bluegrass (#79)
#85. To: Lady X (#84)
Okay, sweetpea, did you actually read what you posted in Nancy Levent's piece??
#86. To: Lady X (#83)
#87. To: Lady X, bush_is_a_moonie (#84)
Nancy Levent's piece??
#88. To: bluegrass (#87)
#89. To: bluegrass (#87)
#90. To: Lady X (#88)
.
.
.