Category Archives: Leo Donofrio

We The People Foundation, WeThePeopleFoundation.org, Press conference, Monday, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, US Supreme Court, Donofrio vs Wells, Obama not eligible, Chicago Tribune, News

Posted on December 8, 2008 | 11 comments

Today,  Monday, December 8, 2008, we should know if the US Supreme Court will consider for review the Donofrio versus Wells lawsuit. Also, the We The People Foundation will hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Note this from Leo Donofrio:

“ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.

I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.

Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide.   The event has nothing to do with me.”

Here is the We The People Foundation press conference notice on the National Press Club site followed by the press release:

Event Name: Obama’s Citizenship 
Event Date: Dec. 8, 2008
Event Type: News Conference 
Time: 1:30 PM 
Sponsored by: We the People Foundation 
Event Location: Murrow Room 
Details: Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen? 
Contact/Reservations: Bob Shultz
518-656-3578
bob@givemeliberty.org 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We The People Foundation

For Constitutional Education, Inc.

http://www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org

2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804

December 4, 2008 Contact:

 

 

 

Bob Schulz,

518-656-3578

info@GiveMeLiberty.org

Mr. OBAMA’s ELIGIBILITY TO BE AIRED MONDAY

AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Queensbury, NY

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

 

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

 

the We The People

Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA

(Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United

States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will

answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is

expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have

asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of

the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of

Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama’s response to the publication of his Open Letter in

the

 

 

 

Chicago Tribune

on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the

Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to

provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original (“vault”) birth certificate and (2)

arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama’s

citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

“Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or

she is a ‘natural born citizen,’” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. “To date, Mr.

Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that

would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility.”

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse

consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a

 

usurper

 

 

 

.

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

11 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chicago Tribune, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Justices answer, US Constitution, New Jersey, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 2008

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 16 comments

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“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.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Here are the three distinct aspects of Donofrio’s lawsuit that should be reviewed and clarified
by the US Supreme Court Justices:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

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?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.

 
“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.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

16 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Superior Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 31 comments

From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”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.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“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.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””

31 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, District Court, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama con man, Skeletons in Obama’s closet, Reverend James Manning, Pravda, Keith Olbermann, Devil and chickens have come home to roost, Obama must step down, Beg forgiveness

Posted on December 6, 2008 | 31 comments

The Reverend James Manning speaks about the skeletons in Obama’s closet and the white liberal media
such as Keith Olbermann, that has helped keep his secrets. He mentions Obama’s probable birth in Kenya and
Obama’s father being a citizen of Kenya under British rule. Obama was either born in Kenya and/or is not a naturalized citizen. He also speaks of Obama avoiding this issue using three high paid law firms. Enough said. The
YouTube video speaks for itself:

Thanks to commenter BerlinBerlin for bringing the video to my attention.

31 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Democrats, DNC, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, James Manning, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Railla Odinga, Senator Obama, Sex, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, video, voters, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Leo Donofrio US Supreme Court update, December 5, 2008, Docket Confusion, Donofrio on docket entries, Dr. Taitz, Jusctices decision 10:00 AM Monday, December 8, 2008, Radio interviews today

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 22 comments

First of all, I was notified that Dr. Taitz confirmed that the Supreme Court Justices weren’t making a decision until 10am Monday.

Leo Donofrio has provided an update on the Supreme Court Docket, campaigns by other people and radio interviews
today, Friday, December 5, 2008.

“I must admit that past comments of mine regarding the docket entries of Nov. 19, one for the Justice Thomas referral and one for the distribution for conference, might not signify any affirmative action.   I cannot get a straight answer from the Supreme Court despite many attempts.  Different press sources have also received various explanations as well.

I’ve examined other dockets for applications and I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the docket entries mean.   I have requested an explanation from the Clerk numerous times and guidance from the Public Information Office.  The PIO did try to help, moreso than the Clerk’s office, but I am more confused than ever.

Muddying the waters is the  Reporter’s Guide to Applications Pending Before the United States Supreme Court, specifically page 3.

I am removing from my blog, all references which indicate any knowledge of what the docket entries mean.  And let me go on the record to apologize if it turns out that my analysis of the docket was erroneous.   I did the best I could with the information I had.

I was told by the stay clerk on Nov. 6 that Justice Thomas would deny a renewed application.  But, if what the Reporter’s Guide says is true – that it’s current standard practice for the renewed application to be referred to the full court – then the stay clerk, whose job it is to handle applications, had no business telling me Justice Thomas would deny the renewed application.

And he didn’t deny it.  (Donofrio resists temptation to stick out his tongue and say, “Nah na nah na na”… barely.)

The communication and tactics taken by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office have been abysmal.   I have absolutely no respect for that office.

Regardless, I take full responsibility for the confusion and must go on record now as saying I have no idea what the docket entries mean, or if they mean anything at all.
I have not been given any information on the disposition of the application at the conference today.   SCOTUS did issue a miscellaneous order granting certiorari in two cases today.

The rest of their orders for today should come out on Monday.  If I had to read into this, I would say it doesn’t look good, but it’s just a guess.  The Public Information Office said they have no information other than what the Court published today.   The full order list will be out on Monday.

I wish I could give better guidance, but I can’t.

WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN

I also want people to know that I appreciate all the letters sent, but I never supported a form letter.   I was adamant about that and I was hoping people would formulate their own thoughts and not sign a kind of petition.   People need to think and express themselves form their own personal heart and mind.

As I reported below, the letter didn’t address the issues of my case, and the solicitation for participation in the campaign did unfortunately mix up the birth certificate issue, something I’ve really tried to avoid.  I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that the only people with standing to certify that info are the various Secretaries of State.
But I do appreciate so much that people laid out money to support the Constitutional issues raised.   And I know it was important for folks to be heard before the conference today.  I just don’t like the concept of bulk e mails.  It’s not like the Justices will read them over and over.  Think about it.

I’m not into herding.  I’m into individual expression.  And I refuse to tell people what to say.  I’ve been consistent about that.

The World Net Daily letter campaign had nothing to do with me and I did not endorse it.  But I do appreciate the effort everybody made, including WND.   It’s just not my style and never will be.

Also, I will not be involved with any press conferences on Monday, Dec 8.  If you see my name associated with that anything like that, please know it is not with my permission.  If you don’t read about something involving me on this blog, assume my name is being used without my permission.

RADIO INTERVIEWS FOR DEC. 5, 2008.

At 7:30 PM EST, I will be on The Laurie Roth Show.

At 9:00 PM EST, I will be on The Lion’s Den, Plains Radio Network.

At 1:00 AM EST, I will be on Coast To Coast with George Noory.  Their web site hasn’t been updated yet, but I haven’t emailed the release form back yet, so give it an hour or so.

That’s the last radio I’m doing unless certiorari is granted.  I have refused all requests for TV interviews and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.  Radio is a much more powerful form of communication.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

22 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Donofrio versus Wells, US Supreme Court Response, Leo Donofrio lawsuit appeal, December 5, 2008, Supreme Court Justices decision, Connecticut, NJ Secretary of State, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 16 comments

** Update  Below **

On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution. 

Leo Donofrio has an appeal in the US Supreme Court of his lawsuit against Connecticut Secretary of State
Nina Wells.

Today, Friday, December 5, 2008, there is no official word whether the nine justices of the US Supreme Court have decided on the case. Here is an update from Jeff Schreiber:

“UPDATE, 5:45pm:Several people are saying that, because Donofrio’s case was not among the release showing two cases for which certiorari were granted, his stay-as-petition-for-cert was denied. Even the law blog at The Wall Street Journal is reporting as such. While I cannot say whether or not it was denied, as much as I think it probably was, nothing I have seen so far–including the order list distributed today–suggests 100 percent that it was either granted or denied.

 

Perhaps I’m missing something, but I cannot find anything that conclusively points toward denial. I’m guessing that, absent evidence to the contrary, people are simply taking sides according to the odds.

Absent another miscellaneous order showing that the Justices granted Donofrio’s petition, not likely to come at this hour, we’ll just have to wait until Monday or Tuesday for the full list of orders.

Monday, remember, is the press conference at the National Press Club. I may try to go, should I be able to shuffle some work around and decide to petition the Court for a stay with regard to studying for exams. We’ll see.

Furthermore, I just saw Wolf Blitzer on CNN do a three- or four-minute segment on Donofrio’s case. Of course, it was painted as you would expect it to be but, at this point, any focus on the constitutional aspects of this issue is good. The only thing, however, is that I wish that the underlying motivation behind these legal actions would not necessarily be depicted as so much anti-Obama as pro-Constitution.”

Read more from Jeff Schreiber here:

http://www.americasright.com/

 

US Supreme Court Docket record this morning:

No. 08A407  
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:  
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
  Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
 

 

 

 

 

 

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:    
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93  
  East Brunswick, NJ  08816  
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio

 

** Update **

I have just been notified that Dr. Taitz confirmed that the Supremes weren’t making a decision until 10am Monday.

16 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Jeff Schreiber, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Christopher Strunk lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Writ of Mandamus, NY Electoral College, Restrain, Associate Justice Ginsburg, DC District Court, State Constitutional issues, SCOTUS Rule 22, December 4, 2008

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 17 comments

Christopher Strunk, on December 4, 2008, placed his NY lawsuit before the US Supreme Court. Strunk’s Writ of Mandamus attempts to restrain the NY Electoral College from voting on December 15, 2008.

“Christopher Strunk, being pro se in two cases (one in DC District Court and another appealing to the Supreme Court), served the Supreme Court with an application for Writ of Mandamus to Associate Justice Ginsburg yesterday and served the DC District Court with a Writ as well.

The following is an excerpt from an email I received along with associated PDF documents.

I am currently tracking eligibility lawsuits via my Current Lawsuit Listing page.
State Justice ruled on the State Consitutional issues today in the Article 78; however, left the Federal dual office holder issue unreasolved and will be part of my appeal in 2nd Circuit in 08-cv-4289.
 
Yesterday I took a bus to DC and filed the SCOTUS Applcation under Rule 22 for a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the NY Electoral Collgee and for relief in the matter of 2nd circuit review of my substantive due process request for a three judge panel instead of signle political science oriented Judge (Katzmann).
 
In addition I went into DCDC to find out if they have moved mu complaint there which although they have had it since 112608, but done nothing- I served them with a copy of the DC Circuit apopllication for a writ of mandamus kicking the DCDC ass on the poor person matter.
 
Anyway they work is in the hopper and the SCOTUS matter as per the letters of transmittal below at least Justice Thomas should have something from New York for the Conference tomorrow for the other aopplications from NJ, CT and suppose PA and CA.”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1588

I would like to thank The Right Side Of Life website for the heads up on this filing.

17 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, District Court, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, New York, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Leo Donofrio, US Presidents, Precedents, Chester Arthur, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Chester Arthur’s lies, US Constitution, Grandfather clause, December 5, 2008

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 1 comment

Leo Donofrio has provided an excellent article on the Natural Born Citizen rule from the US Constitution,
the grandfather clause and precedents involving US Presidents. Donofrio examines James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Chester Arthur.

“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;

JAMES BUCHANAN

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.

Both his parents, James Buchanan and Elizabeth Speer, 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 citizens of the United States.   When their son James was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

1 Comment

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Judges, Justice, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC, Count Down, December 4, 2008, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional law Professor, Leo Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, Turley is wrong, Donofrio contacted Turley, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama not eligible

Posted on December 4, 2008 | 10 comments

** Update below **

Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional law Professor, is scheduled to appear on MSNBC tonight, Thursday,
December 4, 2008 on Count Down. According to Leo Donofrio, Jonathan Turley is wrong about his lawsuit,
Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, that is currently before the US Supreme Court
“JONATHAN TURLEY, CON LAW EXPERT GETS IT WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately he got it all wrong.  Here is the comment I left at his blog. It is awaiting moderation, but other comments have been cleared since I left mine:

naturalborncitizen 1, December 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Mr. Turley,

My name is Leo Donofrio and my application before the Supreme Court says, within the body of the pleading, that I believe Mr. Obama is a Citizen of the United States – born in Hawaii. Your report above is not accurate.

My law suit challenges his status as a “natural born citizen” based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject.  Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth.  He was also a US citizen “at birth”. He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “at birth”, hence the word “born” in the requirement.

You have completely mis-stated my lawsuit. I have repeatedly said, over and again, that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I have criticized everyone who has said Mr. Obama is not a citizen. I believe he is a “native born citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”.

The law suit is based upon what distinction the framers drew between the requirement for a Senator and Representative, which only requires “Citizen” status as opposed to the requirements for President, which requires “natural born Citizen” status. As you are aware, this is an issue of first impression for SCOTUS.

Please do not go on national TV and mis-lead the viewers. For a more in depth discussion, please see my response to today’s ABC News faulty report at:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

** Update 8:12 PM **

I just watched the segment. Apparently Jonathan Turley got the message about Donofrio’s argument.

Here are some quotes from Olbermann and Turley:

Olbermann

  • “Crackpot lawsuit”
  • “Dumbest lawsuit ever”
  • “Yes, this crap again”
  • “Bogus claim of citizenship”

Turley

  • “Odds heavily against”
  • “Argument not going to appeal to justices”

I never watch MSNBC for obvious reasons. They were in bed with Obama during the election campaign.

Keith Olbermann please respond and clarify some things for us:

  • Are you on the payroll of the Obama camp?
  • Do you care about the truth?
  • Would you recognize the truth if it bit you on the ass.
  • Do you care about this country?
  • Do you ever do any real research?

I really would like an answer. Provide one and I will publish it.

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Journalism, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, media, MSNBC, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

wethepeoplefoundation.org, We The People Foundation, Press Conference, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, Washington DC, Robert Schulz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, Obama not eligible lawsuits, US Supreme Court answer, Chicago Tribune letter to Obama

Posted on December 4, 2008 | 13 comments

The We The People Foundation will hold a Press Conference on Monday, December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Robert Schulz of the We The People Foundation will discuss the letter to Obama published in the Chicago Tribune and then the plaintiffs in the major lawsuits before the US Supreme Court will speak.

The following is from a Wall Street Journal, Market Watch article dated December 4, 2008:

“On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.”

Read more here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D

The following is from the We The People Foundation site:

“Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers. 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. 

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. 

As a formal “Notice of a Constitutional Violation,” the Petition naturally includes the People’s inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

For the D.C. press conference the WTP Foundation has reserved the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club from 1-4 pm on Monday, December 8, 2008. We are hopeful that C-SPAN may cover what could be a pivotal, historic event.”

Read more here:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

I spoke to Robert Schulz several weeks ago and he stated that it was only after Obama began avoiding requests for proof of his eligibility and using legal wrangling to escape confrontation that he began to believe there was a serious problem with Barack Obama.

13 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, California, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Connecticut, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, Lightfoot v. Bowen, McCain Obama, media, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, press conference, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,