THE Obama lawsuit to follow

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Leo C. Donofrio has broken down the issue of the Messiah's eligibility into its most basic form. Forget all the other lawsuits. This Donofrio has pinned the tail on the donkey.

His lawsuit was put in front of the Honorable Clarence Thomas today. We'll see what happens.


Natural Born Citizen
 
Leo C. Donofrio has broken down the issue of the Messiah's eligibility into its most basic form. Forget all the other lawsuits. This Donofrio has pinned the tail on the donkey.

His lawsuit was put in front of the Honorable Clarence Thomas today. We'll see what happens.


Natural Born Citizen

And the scapegoat for failure of this new tactic has already been planted......

:rolleyes:
 
Here it is in a nut-shell...
From Donofrio's site, Leo Donofrio speaking:

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.


The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:


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;


That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

{end snip}
=========================================================



Fact-Check is starting to inch closer to the truth. This is now on the Fact-Check site.



“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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” This statement is NOT true according to the Kenyan constitution.

When you think about it, no wonder Michelle has been running around with the NEW story that Obama's mamma was single when she had Barack. (All you have to do is throw the Honolulu Advertiser birth ad showing Mr. & Mrs Barack Hussein Obama having a son on Aug 4th. That'll make an Obamabot squirm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can read seems to me FactCheck is admitting that Barack Obama was a British citizen, a dual-citizen "at birth". Tsk Tsk. Not allowed under the constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

“Whether, in cases of one citizen and one alien parent, the father or the mother is the alien might also affect natural born citizen status since, under American naturalization statutes in effect around the time of the Constitutional Convention, the citizenship of the child depended on the citizenship and residency of the father. See Act of Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. The American naturalization acts were based on earlier British statutes. See, e.g., An act ... For naturalizing ... the children of natural born subjects of the crown, 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731). The Supreme Court in Montana v. Kennedy concluded that the Naturalization Act of 1802, the controlling statute at the time of the petitioner's birth, made children born abroad citizens only if their fathers were or had been citizens. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 310-11 (1961). Until 1934, citizenship of the mother could not be passed on to her foreign-born children. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any way you slice it and dice it, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. He should drop out now before he starts the next civil war here in the U.S.

I love this post from Andrew from the Donofrio blog site...
"His (Donofrio's) case rests on the extremely simple premise that Obama's status in respect of being a "natural-born citizen" is identical to that of the Framers. Unfortunately for Obama, he isn't 300 years old, so the grandfather clause door is closed. And there aren't any other doors to open. That was precisely the intent of the Framers, and it's finally come home to roost."
 
And the scapegoat for failure of this new tactic has already been planted......

:rolleyes:


Well, the clerk for Justice Souter blocked Donofrio's first effort to get the suit seen by the SCOTUS. After the clerk admitted he was srong to deny the Writ, Donofrio wisely moved to Thomas although I think Scalia would have been the best choice as he is a strict constructionist.


Berg added a little more pressure today as well as this full-page AD was placed in the Washington Times today.

I would use the term "the noose is tightening" but we know where that'll get me.:shifty:

obamaad.jpg
 
***UPDATE ALERT***

The renewed application hit the US Supreme Court on-line docket search engine sometime between noon and 2:15 PM today, Nov. 18, 2008. Below is a copy of the docket:

_________________________________________________________________

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.
 
LOL, Berg is going to make a mint off all you suckers.

How much have you flushed down his toilet?
 
LOL, Berg is going to make a mint off all you suckers.

How much have you flushed down his toilet?

Kind of what I'd expect from you. Nothing about the content of what I posted.

Sure, Berg's suit has the standing issue to overcome. Donofrio's doesn't.

I did slip Berg some cash when I was out of town a week and a half ago. Money well invested. Now I just need for Obama to make that investment tax deductible.:)
 
What's even better is the money Donofrio is using for his lawsuit against Obama that he made by playing poker. Gotta love the guy.:p
Now that you've said that, I DO love the guy. A man after my own heart. What do you think bought my new HK91? :D
 
LOL, Berg is going to make a mint off all you suckers.

How much have you flushed down his toilet?

Just to clarify, I genuinely hope that this entire pursuit turns out to be a waste of time. I think if this were to be true, it would be disastrous for the country.

With that said, why don't you have a real discussion about this, Johnny? There's clearly "smoke" here, what part of it do you dismiss? Best I can tell, this would be a rather simple issue for Obama to resolve and have taken off the table. What possible motivation might he have for not doing so? While I think the charge is outrageous, I'm unable to think of a reasonable explanation to defend the Obama campaign.
 
I wonder if precedence has anything to do with the silence on the Obama side... Sort of if you bow down to one perceived fringe character, it sets a bad precedent, and soon you are bombarded with lots of strange activity.

I certainly think it is just smoke and mirrors, and his live birth certificate was posted on his site, however I do know that could be smoke and mirrors as well...
 
I wonder if precedence has anything to do with the silence on the Obama side... Sort of if you bow down to one perceived fringe character, it sets a bad precedent, and soon you are bombarded with lots of strange activity.

I certainly think it is just smoke and mirrors, and his live birth certificate was posted on his site, however I do know that could be smoke and mirrors as well...

It can't be precedence, McCain was facing a similar challenge and addressed it. Simply providing proof of citizenship is a reasonable request.

If they were asking him to prove a negative, that'd be one thing.

My only explanation is that he is reluctant to be forthcoming regarding his past because it will expose possible clerical "mistakes" (we'll say politely) on legal forms and applications he submitted in the past. This could open him up to perjury charges.
 
I am filing a lawsuit! I fel McCain owes the U.S for 3 aircraft that he destroyed, O.K two I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say the third times, he was shot down.
 
I am filing a lawsuit! I fel McCain owes the U.S for 3 aircraft that he destroyed, O.K two I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say the third times, he was shot down.

You are so stupid that it actually makes me uncomfortable for you.
 

So you'd think this would be easily resolved.
Instead the DNC keeps spending time, paying lawyers to have the case dismissed on technicalities and standing to sue? Why?
Other than the explanation I offered earlier, I can think of a plausible explanation.
 
Just to clarify, I genuinely hope that this entire pursuit turns out to be a waste of time. I think if this were to be true, it would be disastrous for the country.


Before the election, I would have disagreed. Now, I tend to agree with you on that one.

It is rather questionable how this country would handle it. I am not talking about the anger of the Obama supporters and what that would lead to (a lot of rioting, at the very least), but constitutionally. Assuming Obama is shown to be constitutionally ineligable to be president, how would we determine who would be president then? Would Biden become the next president? Would we have to do a run-off election of sorts? As far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't deal with this at all...
 
I can think of a plausible explanation.

I thought of one early on in this whole thing - he might be illegitimate... which could be embarrassing, but, wouldn't disqualify him.

Other than that - who knows -
 
I thought of one early on in this whole thing - he might be illegitimate... which could be embarrassing, but, wouldn't disqualify him.

Other than that - who knows -

Then maybe two... but I don't think he's illegitimate. If he were, that wouldn't hurt him politically, and if the natural father was a U.S. citizen, it would simplify things. It's not politically advantageous to have been fathered by an unfaithful alcoholic, Marxist, polygamist from Kenya who abandoned his family.

I meant to say, "I can only think of one plausible explanation." And, as I mentioned earlier, that would be that disclosing those public records might perjure him on some other form he filled out during his legal career or when he took the bar exam.
 
I said it once before, and I'LL say it again, if there were one ounce of credibility to this nonsense about court hearings concerning Obama's birth, the news media would be all over this like a fly on sh!t.
I don't belive a word of it.
Don't you think, Shawn Hannity, the biggest Obama hater in the world, would have something to say about this crap, if there were any truth too it?
Bob.
 
I said it once before, and I'LL say it again, if there were one ounce of credibility to this nonsense about court hearings concerning Obama's birth, the news media would be all over this like a fly on sh!t.
Unfortunately, I don't believe this to be true.
I don't think they would be on this story. Even disregarding their fanboi status, if this story were to break, it would horribly undermine their credibility. It would make them look terrible.


Don't you think, Shawn Hannity, the biggest Obama hater in the world, would have something to say about this crap, if there were any truth too it?
Bob.
Hannity isn't much of an independent thinker.
So, unless the story had gained some traction, it would be under Hannity's radar.
 
Unfortunately, I don't believe this to be true.
I don't think they would be on this story. Even disregarding their fanboi status, if this story were to break, it would horribly undermine their credibility. It would make them look terrible.



Hannity isn't much of an independent thinker.
So, unless the story had gained some traction, it would be under Hannity's radar.


Obviously it isn't under anyone's radar.
The only place I have seen this mentioned is in this forum.
Media is drawn into things like this.
Now -a -days, media couldn't care if the facts are true or not.
They just want to be on top of any story, and if this one had any merit at all, they would be on it.
It seems strange too me that in this entire world, not one media outlet in the world has hit on this birth certificate crapola.
If it is truly the story that it is presummed to be, in this forum, you can bet your butt, the media would be making it breaking news on cable and, front page in print.
That just isn't happening, and that should be telling us all something.
It is all bull crap.
Bob.
 
Now -a -days, media couldn't care if the facts are true or not.
They just want to be on top of any story, and if this one had any merit at all, they would be on it.
Again, I disagree with your observation. I'll give you two examples of Democrats involved in tabloid scandals that the mainstream media completely ignored. Mind you, these were sources that were well supported and recognize as being true.

Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. This was a huge story, but did you know that Newsweek sat on the story? It was released to the public only after it was leaked to Matt Drudge and the Drudgereport. After that, the press had no choice but to cover it.

And what about John Edwards infidelity and his illegitimate child? Everyone in political circles knew that he was a womanizer, but the press never mentioned it. And despite abundant evidence of the affair and child, the press refused to run a story on it. It wasn't until the Enquirer got photos and trapped Edwards in a hotel bathroom that the MSM press had to reluctantly acknowledge the story, though they downplayed it.

Could you imagine if there was a plausible rumor that Mitt Romney was cheating on his wife and that campaign contributors were support an illegitimate child that had result from the affair?? Do you think the NY Time would sit on that story long?

I don't.



If it is truly the story that it is presummed to be, in this forum, you can bet your butt, the media would be making it breaking news on cable and, front page in print.
That just isn't happening, and that should be telling us all something.
It is all bull crap.
Bob.

Here's a relevant movie quote: "They write about cases like these in the private eye handbook, honey. Something about a ten foot pole"

Until this story is confirmed in no uncertain terms, NO ONE wants to go near it. It is toxic.
If you report on it and it turns out to be false, as it likely would be, it will ruin you.
 

Members online

Back
Top