Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen due to foreign father, H. Brooke Paige, Vattel Law of Nations cited

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen due to foreign father, H. Brooke Paige, Vattel Law of Nations cited

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.

“Vt. Supreme Court hears case challenging legality of Barack Obama’s run for re-election”

“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.”

Paige has contended historical papers that the framers relied on at the time the Constitution was written indicated a natural-born citizen was someone who was born of parents who were both American citizens. Obama’s father, now deceased, was a citizen of Kenya.

The argument was rejected by Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent in a ruling in November. Bent, in a seven-page decision, said Paige had no real proof to support his definition of the term natural-born citizen.

Paige, of the town of Washington, appealed to decision to the high court. At Tuesday’s hearing he told the justices he was not challenging Obama’s citizenship, as the so-called “birthers” group has contended.

“Don’t pay any attention to them,” he told the justices. “The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.”

Obama, who was named in Paige’s original lawsuit, was not represented at Tuesday’s hearing. Paige said he was unable to get anyone to successfully serve Obama with his lawsuit, a predicament Justice John Dooley said concerned him.

“How can the court issue an order when he is not a party to the case,” Dooley asked. Paige said Obama “chose not to be present” and that copies of all of the filings in the case had been sent by registered mail to the White House.”

“As the hearing ended, Paige called out to the justices and began walking toward them as they were departing the courtroom, hoping to give each of them copies of “The Law of Nations,” the 867-page book first published in 1773 by Emer de Vattel.

Paige has claimed the framers relied on “The Law of Nations” when they inserted the term natural born citizens into the Constitution as a presidential requirement.”

The media and the Obama camp have striven to obfuscate the eligibility issue  and malign anyone questioning Obama. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Mr. Paige ( or possibly the reporter ) made several inaccurate statements.

First of all, no one is questioning Obama’s citizenship. After all, we will give that to anyone.

It is the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the presidency that is the concern. Mr. Paige accurately questions Obama’s status because he did not have 2 US citizen parents.

The other concern is Obama’s birthplace, which has not yet been proven. The Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation is moving forward with evidence that the purported birth certificate image placed on is fraudulent. It is believed that they will cooperate in a pending Alabama Supreme Court case.

41 responses to “Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen due to foreign father, H. Brooke Paige, Vattel Law of Nations cited

  1. Good Morning CW. Is there one judge brave enough? If it’s going to happen, it will be in Alabama.

  2. citizenwells

    Good morning Zach, et al.
    Judge Roy Moore.

  3. Here is my question,

    If the Alabama Supreme Court rules in favor of the Petitioner, wouldn’t this simply force the Alabama SOS to confirm Obama’s eligibility to be on the ticket? Then the Alabama SOS just gets a letter or email like the one sent to the Arizona SOS and says yep, I’m satisfied now.

    I think the question before the Court, is whether or not the SOS has an obligation to verify eligibility of those on a ticket.

  4. citizenwells

    William, et al.
    That is correct.
    However ( the reason I keep quoting Marbury v Madison ) the courts need to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen
    since the states are responsible for the elections & the federal laws still apply (10th Amendment).
    Minimally there is an implied duty to uphold the Constitution & in some cases an explicit duty by state officials.

  5. Free Speech

    CW, you are correct. Furthermore:

    A case against BHO could be brought directly to SCOTUS.

    The precedent for getting standing and bringing a case directly to the United States Supreme Court upon Original Jurisdiction is the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.”

    Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

    Marbury was a case involving a minor public minister. The case against Barrack Hussein Obama involves all “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” of the United States and of all foreign nations with diplomatic status with the United States. Furthermore, the case against Barrack Hussein Obama involves all States of the United States as parties.

    As in Marbury, a case against Barrack Hussein Obama can be brought directly before SCOTUS, petitioning the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus compelling Barrack Hussein Obama to abide by the Constitutional Contract that he entered into with We the People on January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2013 to uphold his Oath to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

  6. citizenwells

    The lesson from Marbury v Madison is that the Constitution rules & judges do your damn jobs.

  7. Free Speech

    citizenwells | May 5, 2013 at 9:20 am |

    The lesson from Marbury v Madison is that the Constitution rules & judges do your damn jobs.

  8. Citizenwells,
    Interesting that someone filed a case based upon the obvious unsettle dispute of the definition of NBC. We know from past discussions here that: 1) Vattel was used for many of the positions within the Constitution 2)The founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, John Jay, had free access to Vattel’s law of Nations as noted by the New York City library (the first nations capital) having checked out the book to them. 3) Law of Nations is the only book or work directly referenced within the body of the Constitution. The SCOTUS only decision on this subject was to say that ‘it has never been disputed Persons born of citizen parents on soil, were Natural born…all others there are questions.’ These data, to a rational human being interested in government, would be enough to open debate to settle the issue. We clearly don’t live in ‘rational’ times when it comes to government.

    Bill Mayer, whom I am not a fan, stated that ‘citizen possession of firearms would not stop tyranny. Government was to big and powerful for that now.’ On the face of his statement, and knowing full well the military power of the United States, I would agree. This is a warning to the masses that the trap has already been sprung, and ‘We the People’ can never reclaim ourselves from tyranny. The left elites are already announcing that we have been led into serfdom, and their is nothing that we can do about it. The government can lie, kill, break the laws, and pay for propaganda; as evidenced by Bengazi, Fast and Furious, planned parenthood, and Obama’s candidacy. Many Americans have begun to ‘retire’ outside the United States for this very reason. What will the uninformed do when they find they are trapped in a dictatorship……is that why homeland security keeps ordering bullets?



    Some conspiracies are very real and also really big and well organized. The target is to destroy our U.S. Constitution and Republic.

    Remember this quote from history:
    “We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. … The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.”

    Quote by: J. Edgar Hoover former FBI director. Source: Elks Magazine (August 1956).


    The answers to both of these questions is yes……


    I do not have the answer to this question,… but time will tell.

  10. RMinNC | May 5, 2013 at 11:46 am |

    Hi RM,

    Just my opinion, here.

    I, too, don’t know if we can turn this around but I’m thinking that unless we wake up and look around us, the answer is ‘no.’

    When I talk to the many moonbats who inhabit my state and tell them that their freedoms are being taken away one by one, the typical answer is ‘Oh, really? Which ones?’

    It’s attitudes like this that will doom us. They’re under the impression that government is all-knowing and is *always* looking out for us. Unfortunately, there’s no sense trying to tell them otherwise.

    I’m completely on board with OldSailor, who’s been warning us for months that up is down and black is white. Just look around; everyone seems to be concerned about themselves only and what they can get for free. Abortion on demand is the law of the land and is often times used as birth control. Kids sleeping with as many partners as they can. Pregnancy? The morning after pill and abortion are readily available, so they just continue to travel along the self-gratification path with no conscious thought whatsoever.

    Of course, government is there to *help* us after all, we elected the first ‘black’ President, didn’t we? He must be as cool as we think! No consideration is ever given to the controversy surrounding him, his czars and corrupt cabinet after all, it’s the Chicago way, isn’t it?

    As long as our morals continue to descend into the toilet (and stay there), we continue on a selfish ‘me, me, me’ path, do not pull together as communities, disrespect our fellow citizens and the unborn, and trust this monster of a government 100%, the answer is a resounding ‘NO;’ we will not be able to turn tis around.

  11. SUEQ…….

    Yep…we are in a mell of a hess…….but we can turn this around.

    Our prediciment kind of reminds me of Rome before the HUNS kicked in the door to the palace……it was a ME,ME,ME society then also…

    Just give the masses their “bread and circus” and they will be happy….

    For today’s society, our bread and circus is “television and food stamps”……

    But like you, I feel the day of reckoning is near… way or the other, I think you and I will live to see one of two things happen.

    If God is willing, we will turn this madness around and put this REPUBLIC back on track… will cause a lot of pain because the masses have been given a free ME ME ride for so long, they feel entitled to that.

    Or……we will go under and America will no longer be America…..if that happens….EVERYONE will be in the same boat…those who opposed the movement toward socialism and communism and those who went along for the ride…..

    Either way, communism in America will be brutal and cruel…Horrors you could never imagine being committed by your fellow Americans will be happening to protect the state’s interest of slavery.

    1. GOD will be officially declared dead and in his place, the state will reign supreme and tell you what religion you must obey.
    .2. Your children and grandchildren will officially belong to the state and your control over them will be absent. They will become property of the stat to do with as the state wills..
    3. You will receive guidance and directions from the state information centers via television which will pump out on a 24 hour basis directions and orders. Any violations will be severely punished. Youy will be required to believe everything the state publishes as the truth.
    4. Your allowance of food, water and other necessities for life will be rationed and controlled by the state, for they know how much it takes to support life.
    5. Your neighbor will be rewarded and encouraged to report you for any and all violations of the state’s rules .Neighbor will turn against neighbor, family against family. The word trust will be erased from the dictionary.
    6. Finally, those who cannot be reeducated to conform to the state, will be eliminated…I repeat, ELIMINATED. Dead, disappear, gone…. without any explanation required.


    I was fortunate (or unfortunate whichever you might think) enough to see COMMUNISM in FULL BLOOM in EAST BERLIN during 1973-74.while I was stationed with the Berlin Brigade. All that I mentioned above was and did happening to the citizens of EAST Berlin at that time.

    A map was not needed to know when you were in EAST Berlin, all you had to do was look around. In the position I served in the military, I was permitted ito visit in EAST Berlin. Once I crossed at Check Point Charlie, it was a different world. Kinda like stepping back in time at least 100 years.

    The people who lived there under communism dressed in drab black clothing, they stared at you with suspecious eyes. I was followed every where I went. People would not even talk to each other there for fear of being reported… short, the people of East Berlin was living in pure hell……We had knowledge of people who disagreed with the communist government there just simply disappearing…no trace. Their economy was a wreck. Bombed out buildings were still standing from the end of WWII. The people were existing at the mercy of the Soviet Union….

    Having first hand knowledge of what communism looks like and how communism treats the people under it…..I feel I am in a good position to know what and where America is heading for if we don’t have an abrupt change of direction…..

    I can’t speak for everyone in America, but personally, I will not live under communism, so I guess if America does not change it’s course…and if communism becomes the way of life in America…….well… I guess I will be one foe the first scheduled for elimination….

    All those who are still around after I’m gone are in for a HELL OF A SURPRISE.

  12. citizenwells

    From William:

    Sign at O’Riley’s Autopart store, Dayton TN

  13. Please excuse the typos and misspelled words…I normally word check before I post, but I didn’t this time……sorry.

  14. ABC News – April 30, 2013

    “‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law”

    “A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare.”

    The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.

    “Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.””
    April 29, 2013

    Daniel P. Kessler:

    “The Coming ObamaCare Shock”

    “Millions of Americans will pay more for health insurance, lose their coverage, or have their hours of work cut back.”

    “… The unpopular health-care law’s rollout is going to be rough. It will also administer several price (and other) shocks to tens of millions of Americans.”


    In the old Soviet Union, the oppressed subjects of regime had a phrase used to describe the news media: “There’s no pravda in Izvestia and there’s no izvestia in Pravda.” In Russian, “Pravda,” the leading Communist Party periodical, means “Truth,” and “Izvestia,” the principal state periodical, means “News.”

    The bosses of the Kremlin had no interest in their subjects knowing anything about the world or having any honest opinions expressed. Instead, the news media (also all cultural life, all educational institutions, all common means of ordinary people sharing anything together) was placed in the hands of bureaucratic flacks, well-trained in determining what constituted news and who had the legal monopoly on truth.

  16. RMinNC @ 2:04,

    Excellent post! But you should have addressed it to SueK…not me. Get your Sues straight. 🙂

    God bless you.

  17. RMinNC | May 5, 2013 at 2:04 pm |

    Hi RM,

    Don’t know where SueQ is today, but SueK has indeed checked in.

    I think we both need to find new handles :).

  18. HA! OK, both Sues are here 🙂

  19. HAHAHA……… too damn early in the day SUEQ, sorry bout that !…..
    and besides….my memory and eyesight isn’t what it use to be….and I have always gotten my K’s and Q’s mixed up (notice I didn’t say P’s and Q’s)!!!…lol

  20. Good one, RMinNC!

  21. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    Make sure to mark down for this Wednesday – May 8th. This should be the beginning of some real fireworks! Best to watch on c-span.

    QUESTION – How come we get more information from the UK?

  22. HonorFirst

    Mr. Bill(ms. helga) | May 5, 2013 at 3:36 pm |

    I hope it will be an open session and not closed to the public

  23. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)


  24. bob strauss

    Minor v. Happersett Revisited.

    [My previous report was in three parts, with the first being a rather extensive exposure of a misquote by the SCOTUS in both McCreery v. Somerville and Wong Kim Ark. The second part exposed fraudulent propaganda from Maskell’s most recent CRS memo. And the final part examined Minor v. Happersett in light of some of the arguments being offered against its precedent, providing new analysis of key provisions of the holding therein. I am reprinting the section on Minor now as a separate post because it is crucial to understanding the case, and it appears to have been somewhat swallowed up by the first two parts.]


    …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

    On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

    Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

    For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

    By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

    Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

    “The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

    For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)

    Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.

    In Maskell’s CRS memo, he alleges that the following statement from Minor left open the issue of whether persons born of aliens could be considered as natural-born citizens:

    “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.” Id. at 167-168. (Emphasis added.)

    Reading this passage in light of the definition of “citizen” from pg. 166 of Minor’s unanimous opinion, it becomes evident that what is referred to here is membership in our nation, and nothing more. Any attempt to insert the words – “natural-born” – into this passage to imply that the court left open the issue of whether those whose citizenship was in doubt might also be eligible to be President would be in direct opposition to the Court’s very holding of the case. This expression of doubt must be limited to the political status of the person, not to their eligibility to hold a municipal office. Political status is a legal term of art which means, “membership in a nation, and nothing more”. Presidential eligibility refers to municipal status. The holding not only determined Virginia Minor’s citizenship, it directly defined “citizen”, and that definition remains the law of the land today.

    First, on pgs. 165-166, the Court defined the meaning of the word “citizen”. Then, on pgs. 167-168, the court defined the class of “natural-born citizens”. The Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint. Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons born in the country to parents who are citizens.

    The Minor Court’s unanimous opinion and definition of natural-born citizen have never been overruled or even questioned. In fact, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly contain something like this:

    Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.

    But no such statement exists. It’s also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and identifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But the Minor Court declined to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural-born citizens of the United States in determining that she was a citizen.

    In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:

    “Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

    The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

    Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

    Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.

    Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.

    The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.

    And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.

    I will more thoroughly address the issue of statutory construction in the days ahead. (Since the state of Georgia will be hearing this issue on Jan. 26, 2012, I have decided to come forward with everything I have now, rather than waiting to publish my book.)

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

  25. Free Speech

    Former Top U.S. Official: I Thought Benghazi Was Terrorism ‘From the Get-Go’

  26. citizenwells

  27. Just who in the hell are the enemies of our Republic?

    After watching this video, you just may say JANET NAPOLITANO…and if you do, you will have every right to that opinion……that was my conclusion !

  28. Mr. Bill(ms. helga) | May 5, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    Isn’t it pathetic that we have to read news reports from the UK to learn about newsworthy events in our own country? The American media won’t report on anything critical of Obama. Are they biased, coerced, incompetent or all of the above? Up until now FOX News has been the only network reporting on the Benghazi coverup. CBS is now stepping into the arena……..

    Three more officials to testify over Benghazi attacks

    Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

  29. Did Leo Donofrio ever get to present his information to anyone in an active court case? His opinions were well reasoned and factual but I never heard another thing about them after the above was released. What happened to him I wonder? I know he no longer posts on the site or any site on the net to my knowledge. What led him to abandon this and where is he now? I thought he had the best argument against Obama’s eligibility of anyone. Did he go to Arpaio with this?

    So clear to me that NBC is a very specific clause in the Constitution that is being distroted by both sides in the political world. Cruz is up next to try it and the repubs sure aren’t going to try and stop him with eligibility issues. I think they all are in on amending the Constitution without amending the Constitution.

  30. What are your thoughts about this?

    Claims Obama administration intentionally undermining 2nd Amendment

    ( quote)
    “President Obama has been doing everything he could to stop the private ownership of guns in America,” Inhofe asserted. “Yet he’s been voted down in a big way by a large majority, and so my feeling is that he’s doing this to buy up [ammunition] so honest, law-abiding citizens here in the United States, like my son, can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.”

    The DHS has claimed it’s simply creating bulk purchase orders to save money and that 80 percent of the ammunition is used for training purposes, but Inhofe isn’t buying the explanation.


  31. cjzak at 9:58 pm —

    “… Leo Donofrio …”

    “… where is he now?”
    “Class A chess player wins awards for his Independent film!!!”

    “A class A chess player LEO DONOFRIO who also goes under the name Jet Wintzer has made an awesome Independent Sci Fi film called Towers!!!!”
    “After more than 20 years attending film fest, Jet Wintzer wins with a film of his own”

    “OLD BRIDGE — Local filmmaker Jet Wintzer and his latest film, “Towers,” won the grand prize for Best Feature at last month’s U.S. Super 8 Film and Digital Video Festival at the Rutgers Film Co-op in New Brunswick.

    The festival, now in its 24th year, took place Feb. 17-19. It is the only major Super 8 film festival in North America.

    Though Wintzer shared honors for Best Feature with Scott Di Lalla of Los Angeles and his film “I Am Zozo,” his victory was significant for the festival as well.”
    “Jet Wintzer
    Actor | Director | Writer”

  32. cjzak at 9:58 pm —

    Short answer. Leo’s brief was indeed presented to the court. It was thrown out, along with Orly Taitz, both of whom I have great respect.

    Do some reading at Leo’s now dormant website. It tells all.

  33. citizenwells

    Good morning Zach, et al.

  34. 8:03 am —
    May 5, 2013

    Beckwith at “The Obama File”:

    “British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya”

    “This is an unreliable, probably false report. It was originally posted in The Daily Pen in July 2012, but it’s turning up again!

    There is no source documentation for this report. If there was an archived document showing an unnamed son of Obama Sr. being born in Kenya in 1961, it would have been included in the Daily Pen’s original report. It wasn’t and this allegation disappeared — until republished yesterday.”

  35. Pingback: Is Obama Above The Law? | End Time Bible Prophecy

  36. Pingback: Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s