Tag Archives: December 8

LTC Terry Lakin court martial, Chain of command, US Army Study Guide, General George Casey, Chief of Staff, Citizen Wells open thread, December 8, 2010

LTC Terry Lakin court martial, Chain of command, US Army Study Guide, General George Casey, Chief of Staff

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”…US Military officer’s oath of office

Which part of “Chain of Command” do they not understand?

From Citizen Wells September 5, 2010.

“From the US Army Study Guide.

Chain of Command List

Posted Monday, July 23, 2007

Commander-in-Chief  -President George W. Bush
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff  -General Peter Pace
Army Chief of Staff
 -General George W. Casey, Jr.
Theater Commander  –
Corps Commander  –
Division Commander  –
Brigade Commander  –
Battalion Commander  –
Company/Troop Commander  –
Platoon Leader  –
Section/Squad/Team Leader”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/lakin-court-martial-commander-in-chief-chain-of-command-citizen-wells-open-thread-september-5-2010/

LTC Terry Lakin memo dated November 20, 2009.

“MEMORANDUM FOR General Casey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

SUBJECT: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ (AR 27-10)

1. I would like to officially submit a complaint under Article 138, UCMJ against General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army. I believe General Casey is following and promulgating invalid and/or illegal orders from a person that is not eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.”

Read more:

 http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf05-ucmjarticle138nov16.pdf

JAG letter to LTC Lakin dated December 11, 2009.
“This responds to your November 20, 2009, memorandum to General George Casey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, subject: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138 (AR 27-10).”
Army Regulation 27-10, paragraphs 20-4b and 20-4e define the terms “commanding officer” and “wrong,” respectfully. A “commanding officer” is “[a]n officer in the complainant’s chain of command, up to and including the first officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the complainant, authorized to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15, UCMJ) on the complainant.” General Casey does not meet the definition of “commanding officer” because he is not a member of your chain of command and he does not have the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment on you.”

“Robin N. Swope
Colonel, US Army
Chief, Administrative Law Division”

Read more:

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf06-jagletter0717_001.pdf

Which part of “Chain of Command” do they not understand?

Obama, if he were eligible to be president, would be in this chain of command. Since he is not eligible, he should immediately be arrested. If you are in the military, including, but not limited to General Casey, and you are not involved in removing or at least challenging the usurper in the White House, you should be court martialed, not LTC Lakin. If you are involved in preventing LTC Lakin from challenging the usurper, Obama, from doing his sworn duty as a military officer, you should be shot.

We The People Foundation, WeThePeopleFoundation.org, Press conference, Monday, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, Jeff Schreiber report, Robert Schulz, Philip J Berg, Orly Taitz, Reverend Manning, Chicago tribune, Curt Wrotnowski case December 12, 2008

Robert Shulz of the We The People Foundation held a press conference on Monday, December 8, 2008, at the National Press Club to discuss the eligibility issues and concerns surrounding Barack Obama. Jeff Schreiber covered the event and has written an excellent report:

“A stone’s throw away from the White House, more than 50 members of the press and curious onlookers alike crowded the intimate Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. this afternoon to hear arguments why Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

The press conference was sponsored by Robert Schulz and his We The People Foundation, both of which just this last week ran an open letter to the former Illinois senator in his hometown Chicago Tribune, appealing to Obama to present for review any and all documentation which will prove his qualification to serve as president pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Also attending the press conference: Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney who, in August, filed the first lawsuit questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility; Orly Taitz, a Chechnyan immigrant turned southern California dentist and lawyer who has filed a pair of suits in the Golden State, one of which was on behalf of Ambassador and former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who ran as the Independent Party’s candidate for president in this past election.; and Rev. James David Manning, chief pastor at the Harlem-based ATLAH World Missionary Church.”

“Schulz deemed the Court’s decision on Donofrio v. Wells “the latest injury,” cited a “conspiracy of silence” with regards to the individual merits of Donofrio’s case and others, and bundled it together with the adverse decision against self-proclaimed “Internet powerhouse” and “legendary muckraker” Andy Martin in Hawaii and the dismissal of Berg’s case at the district court level in Philadelphia. He also lamented a now widely publicized e-mail response on the eligibility-related issue from Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who responded to such an inquiry by noting that voters are responsible for vetting candidates at the presidential level and more.

“Mr. Martinez is wrong,” Schulz said. “He would have us believe that our form of government is a democracy rather than a constitutional republic. It is not too great a burden to demand that one who seeks the office of the president simply produce documents proving his legal eligibility.”

Schulz stated that “as supreme law of the land, the Constitution is all that stands between freedom and tyranny.” He noted that “the Constitution is not a menu” and that we “do not get to pick and choose” which provisions and guidelines to follow, maintaining that the Natural Born Citizen clause was designed by our founders to “safeguard our nation from outside influence.””

“Philip Berg was next to speak, introduced by Schulz as a “lifelong Democrat” and 20-year member of the NAACP. Upon reaching the podium, Berg wasted no time in getting to the point.

“Barack Obama is really a phony, and this is the largest hoax perpetrated against the United States in 200 years,” Berg said. “Obama places our Constitution in a crisis situation, and will be able to be blackmailed by other world leaders who know he is not qualified.”

Berg then reminded those in attendance that his case is currently active and pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, contrary to what a Chicago Tribune article last week had asserted. He also noted that his case is distinguishable from Leo Donofrio’s, later expanding upon the statement and telling America’s Right that while Donofrio’s case was looking to the Court to define the concept of “natural born,” his case was merely before the court to ascertain standing, though he has filed for an injunction to stay the December 15 Electoral College vote pending disposition on his petition for writ of certiorari.”

““My case in district court was dismissed for one reason – standing,” Berg said. “According to the court, I don’t have standing, Bob doesn’t have standing, no one in this room has standing. We’re asking for one qualification out of three. We know he’s at least 35 years old. We’ll give him the 14 years in the country. We just want to know that he is natural born. It’s not that difficult.””

“Next up was Orly Taitz, the southern California dentist-turned-constitutional law attorney. A woman with a curious, unidentifiable, Arianna Huffington-like accent, Taitz explained that she was indeed Chechnyan-born and that, during this recent election cycle, “the media in the United States of America was worse than the media in communist Russia.””

“Taitz had several strong points and good moments in her lengthy presentation, including when she argued that startlingly little needs to be done to show eligibility for the ballot in her state, citing one such example where she showcased the lackluster approach of California Secretary of State Bowen in vetting and certifying mere electors by showing that one such elector, certified by Bowen, has been dead since 2001. Another good moment came when Taitz once again argued against potential foreign influence with regard to the presidency by reading from a letter written by the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, to George Washington in 1787.

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.””

“Just when it looked as though the room would open up for questions, the Rev. James David Manning asked to say a few words. A very eloquent and decidedly patriotic man, he led with a prayer.

“I pray, Lord, that we can overcome the wickedness which has overtaken our politicians, the media, and even in our court systems at the highest level,” Rev. Manning said, “and that this long-legged mack-daddy will not be allowed to take the oath of office on the 20th of January.””

““We don’t know who this man is,” he said, cautioning his fellow African-Americans not to accept this fruit of a white woman as their redeemer. “He’s no Booker T. Washington, I’ll tell you that. He’s no Martin Luther King. But he does possess the potential to be the most prolific con-man in the history of this country. It is my prayer that January 20th will not happen, that Barack Hussein Obama will not be inaugurated. This man has come from the womb of a white woman.””

Read the rest of this great article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Jeff Schreiber puts the MSM to shame with his coverage and article on the press conference and the Barack Obama eligibilty issue, the story of the century.

Philip J Berg, Press Release, December 8, 2008, Injunction to stay Electoral Votes, US Supreme Court, Obama ineligible, Prohibit House and Senate count, Obama not natural born citizen

Here is the latest press release from Philip J Berg:

“For Immediate Release: – 12/08/08
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005 U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 – 570
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
U. S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ISSUE
AN INJUNCTION TO STAY ELECTORIAL VOTES
ON DECEMBER 15, 2008
UNTIL OBAMA PROVES HE IS “QUALIFIED”
TO BE PRESIDENT
AS THIS IS THE LARGEST “HOAX”
IN 200 YEARS
(Washington, DC – 12/08/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed
suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to
serve as President of the United States today filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an
Application for an Injunction to Stay the Electoral Votes on December 15, 2008 and
prohibit V.P. Richard B. Cheney, the House of Representatives and the Senate counting
any votes for Obama until Obama Proves he is “Qualified” to be President.
Berg filed this while waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Writ
of Certiorari that he filed on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J.
I:\Obama\Obama Press Release 12 08 2008.doc
Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants
regarding “standing.”
Mr. Berg remarked today, “I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionallyqualified
natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the
United States.”
Berg continued, “Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows
where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an
attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows
his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United
States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation;
and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around
the world who know Obama is not qualified.”
# # #
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to
obamacrimes.com”

Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, US Supreme Court, December 8, 2008, Conference of December 12, 2008, Denied by Justice Ginsburg, Referred by Justice Scalia, Application for stay, Leo Donofrio

The Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court, has been distributed for
conference on December 12, 2008. Leo Donofrio, whose application for
stay was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008, believes that the
Cort Wrotnowski case has a better chance than his case had.

No. 08A469  
Title:
Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:  
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
  Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
 
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:    
Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554
  Greenwich, CT  06831  
Party name: Cort Wrotnowski
Attorneys for Respondent:    
Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316
  Office of the Attorney General  
  55 Elm Street  
  P.O. Box 120  
  Hartford, CT  06141-0120  
Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Donofrio Application denied by US Supreme Court, Leo Donofrio response, Wrotnowski case still pending, Supreme Court Justices, No statement, Donofrio vs Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State, US Constitution not upheld by Justices or NJ officials, December 8, 2008

Leo Donofrio’s application for stay with the US Supreme Court was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Donofrio.

“DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
[UPDATE 12:23 PM  The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19.  They had the issue before them for for sixteen days.  Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument.  But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that.  The case and issues were considered.  Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal.  I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.   Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds.  Please remember that.  It’s important for history to record that.]

My application was denied.  The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday.  I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was.  On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated  SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22.  The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does.   It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine.  His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing.  Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case.  Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here.  SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure.  I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue.  I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending.  That’s all we can really say with any certainty.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

I have respect for the institution of the US Supreme Court.

Respect for the Justices of the US Supreme Court has to be earned and the jury is still out.

US Supreme Court ignores Donofrio vs Wells, Justices avoid Constitutional issues, US Constitution ignored, Constitutional crisis imminent, Application for stay denied, Justice Thomas, December 8, 2008

The Leo Donfrio lawsuit, Donofrio vs Wells, Application for stay, has been denied by the US Supreme Court on Monday, December 8, 2008. Citizen Wells will gather more information before commenting further.

(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)

 

 

08A407

 

DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE

 

The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and

 

referred to the Court is denied.

 

08M32

 

PONEK,

 

 

 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008

 

 

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

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

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,

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

“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

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

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.””

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

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/