Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
.
From the: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
A ministerial department in the UK, also called FCO
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/barack_hussein_obama_sr
*************************************************
Dr. Jonathan Levy
12 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am seeking information on the following deceased public figure who was a senior Kenyan government official in the Ministries of Finance and Transport.
Barack Hussein Obama (born 1936 - died 1982)
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Jonathan Levy
Solicitor
*******************************************
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
13 November 2009
Dear Dr Levy
Thank you for your email. After 30 years public records are transferred to The National Archives (TNA). I would suggest that any information held on the subject would be retained by them.
Yours Sincerely
Mark Lowen
Information Management Group
*********************************************
I hope someone has contacted the UK National Archives...
New from Donofrio:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.
There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute. Since the statute will most likely be invoked by private citizens in the near future, I will discuss some of the confusion floating about. Recently, Mario Apuzzo Esq. added to the confusion with a blog post that contains multiple misconceptions regarding the federal quo warranto statute and applicable case law.
I know Mr. Apuzzo is an honorable attorney and an intelligent man. I do not want my readers to get the impression that I am advocating otherwise. Regardless, it is necessary for me to strongly counter the impression his recent report has given the public.
I will ask that readers please bone up on the exhaustive work I published back in March which Mr. Apuzzo failed to acknowledge in his post. My previous three part series can be found at the following links:
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 1
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3
I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.
Mr. Apuzzo stated on November 9th, 2009:
Before we begin, we must understand that a quo warranto action is a direct attack on an office holder, questioning his qualifications to hold an office and therefore his warrant and authority to occupy that office. It does not challenge any action taken by that person while having been in office. This type of action is to be distinguished from one where the plaintiff brings an indirect attack (collateral attack) against that office holder, arguing that some action taken by him or her is invalid because he or she is not qualified to hold the office from which the action is taken… Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C.Cir.1984). As we shall see below, this distinction is important, for it can be argued that direct attacks must satisfy the requirements of a quo warranto action while indirect attacks must satisfy the requirements of the de facto officer doctrine. Mr. Donofrio does not explain which one of these approaches he proposes to take against Obama.
I have discussed the difference between collateral attacks and direct attacks in quo warranto on multiple occasions going all the way back to March 2009 when I introduced my readers to the important DC Court of Appeals case – Andrade v. Lauer:
- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.
In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.
The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.
The false implication from Mr. Apuzzo’s recent article is that I haven’t considered the difference between direct and collateral attacks. I certainly have as my prior reports predate his by eight months. Apuzzo goes on to say:
Since Mr. Donofrio is proposing a quo warranto action, he must be planning a direct attack against Obama. Mr. Donofrio fails to recognize the many problems that exist with the quo warranto procedure that he advocates.
I have been on the record numerous times to explain the difficulties in proving one is an “interested person” under the statute. The difficulty is covered in great detail in my previous three part series. Apuzzo fails to acknowledge this work and then berates me as if the work does not exist.
But the most serious deficiency in Mr. Apuzzo’s work concerns his failure to properly quote the US Supreme Court wherein he states:
Under the standard for being an “interested person” as pronounced by Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself…” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that office. Indeed, Newman requires that the plaintiff be “actually and personally interested” in the office and that there be another person against whom the action is brought who has unlawfully occupied the office in question. In other words, the plaintiff must himself make a claim to the office in order to qualify to bring the action.
Mr. Apuzzo has ignored the most important part of the holding in the controlling US Supreme Court case which has construed the quo warranto statute – Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). His reporting here is blatantly mistaken. In the Newman case, the SCOTUS discussed the issue concerning who may be an “interested person” under the statute and they left a huge barn door open on this point. Please refresh your memories on this most important SCOTUS precedent:
For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.
It is that final line issued by the SCOTUS which provides the best possible access to the quo warranto statute and the DC District Court for review of Obama’s eligibility. As readers of this blog are fully aware, I have said over and again that somebody like former Inspector General Walpin – fired from his civil service position by Obama – would have a fair chance at qualifying as an “interested person” to make a direct attack via quo warranto upon Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.
*snip*
The record is quite clear. I have advised the public regarding the Newman case and the quo warranto statute since March. And I have done so comprehensively whereas Mr. Apuzzo has not. There is no excuse for Apuzzo’s ignorance of this important aspect of the Newman holding. It greatly expands the definition of “interested person”.
Furthermore, I am not looking for plaintiffs. But plaintiffs have certainly come looking for me. I have not directly solicited anyone. I simply stated on my blog that I was open to speaking to persons who might fit into the statute’s requirements as defined by SCOTUS.
I have turned most who contacted me down because they did not meet the requirements discussed by the SCOTUS in Newman. I’ve had long conversations with active military persons. I counseled them not to bring quo warranto actions in the DC District Court since the holding in Newman provides no wiggle room for military plaintiffs. Our brave soldiers are certainly interested in their Commander being eligible, but the holding in Newman is rather strict. The court only listed two possible groups of eligible candidates for 3503 access to a direct attack via quo warranto – those who seek the office and others who might have claims under “the civil service laws”. Since SCOTUS went out of their way to limit this holding to these two possible sets of persons, the chances of military persons gaining access under the statute is remote. Not impossible but certainly remote.
Until the statute is tried by persons effected by the civil service laws, I do not believe the military should be on the front line for this issue. And I explained this back in March as well, stating:
I don’t believe the military are party to the civil service laws, so I don’t see them as being the plaintiffs with the best possible standing.
Apuzzo then goes on to argue that the quo warranto statute can’t remove a sitting President, stating:
Second, if the DC statute were to be read as Mr. Donofrio does so as to be used as a tool to oust from office a sitting putative President, then I doubt such an application of that statute would be constitutional. It is highly doubtful that Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the Executive, has the constitutional power to pass a statute which would allow a federal district court to alone directly remove a sitting President.
I have addressed the constitutional issues in great detail in my prior reports. But this is exactly the argument recently made by the Department of Justice before Judge Carter in Barnett v. Obama. The DOJ argued that the quo warranto statute could not be used to remove a sitting President. But Judge Carter did not adopt the DOJ argument in his holding in Barnett v. Obama. Instead, Judge Carter stated on page 25 of that decision:
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503.
It’s very encouraging that faced with the chance to affirm the DOJ position, Judge Carter refrained form doing so. Instead, he quotes the clear language of the statute which applies to all United States offices. As Mr. Apuzzo is well aware, when the language of a statute is clear, the courts have consistently refused to construe the statute otherwise. Accordingly, Judge Carter was careful to state that “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Rest here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/misconceptions-about-quo-warranto/
Also from Donofrio:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies to John Charlton of The Post and Email.
Readers of the comments section of this blog may know that I treated Mr. John Charlton of The Post and Email rather harshly recently. Upon further consideration, I believe that was a mistake. I have been reading his reports and the overall impression I get is of a man doing an honest job and reporting some very interesting stories.
I do take serious issue with his legal conclusions as to quo warranto. I’ve spent countless hours researching the applicability of the federal quo warranto statute to Obama’s eligibility issue. And I am very confident that my analysis on this issue is beyond question. At the time I thought Mr. Charlton was unfairly attacking my work. I do not believe that any longer. Apologies.
Peace.
Leo C. Donofrio
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/apologies-to-john-charlton-of-post-and-email/
But that is the question, one cannot assume an answer before addressing the question. If he's not eligible to the Office of President, then he is not a sitting President, one cannot logically or legally hold an office for which he is not eligible.
The Courts should determine eligibility first, then should he be ineligible, determine what is, or can be, done about it. It would not need to be the district court, or any court, acting alone, that would provide the remedy.
I tend to think the political system would trip on it's collective, well you know, getting such a proven usurper out of office
LEO RETIRES HIS BLOG!
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
The Truth.
Posted in Uncategorized on November 28, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
Emotional pleas do not sway federal courts. Only the cold hard force of legal will does.
Patience. Attention to detail. Strategy. Planning. Honesty. Integrity. Respect for the law. Respect for the process. Thorough research. And most important – genuine injuries different than those suffered by the public at large.
By now it should be clear that federal standing and political question doctrine issues will not yield to exotic conceptual legal theories. As predicted, the courts will not bend to anyone that precedent does not bestow judicial invitation upon. After the electoral college certified Obama, I predicted every eligibility law suit pending against him would fail on procedural grounds unless brought via the DC District Court under the the DC quo warranto statute.
That prediction is batting 1000.
If people feel better blaming the messenger for correctly analyzing these cases, so be it. Not knowing the legal truth doesn’t stop the legal truth from being true.
The blog is taking too much of my time and energy. Therefore, it is going dark. I have work to do. My legal blogging days are over. I may eventually publish a book on this era of my life.
Peace and love.
Leo
~~PING!
Leo is on the march.
He will be going into Court, not as a blogger of the law, but as an Attorney, a really great Constitutional Lawyer. Those of us, who have been fortunate enough, to have travelled with him on this legal journey over the last year are much the wiser for the experience.
Is he going into court? Is that why he shut it down?
I bet he's going to court.
My bet is on the same. He's simply way to interested in this issue, and has devoted too much time to it's research as well. IMHO, he also would like to prove some of his legal theories he's worked on since his case was shot down last year. He's "shut down" in the past, only to come back. Only, this next time, he'll be back with news of a case(s) he's working (HI and/or DC Q.W.)...
Leo has been asking his bloggers to be patient. He wants to do this right. Leo has something to prove and he will do so - when the time is right.
Thanks, Fred Nerks
Bookmarked for later.
He wants to do this right. Leo has something to prove and he will do so - when the time is right.
~~~~~
Wonderful! May God guide and protect him.
Commander Fitzpatrick attacks Obama at Monroe County Courthouse
December 3rd, 2009
Article link, audio link and photos here:
http://americangrandjury.org/commander-fitzpatrick-attacks-obama-at-monroe-county-courthouse
@@@
Monroe County Courthouse yesterday was a historic day.. and it all happened in the small Tennessee town of Madisonville located in Monroe County
Commander Fitzpatrick arrived at the Monroe County Court with documents and evidence in hand..
WVLT-TV in Knoxville, TN did a live video report: http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/78267717.html
Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick has been at the forefront of the Obama “treason” charges since before the election. American Grand Jury has been involved convening Grand Juries that include among other things, the Fitzpatrick “Criminal Complaint” that was filed back in March, 2009 with US Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant US Attorney Edward Schmutzer for the Eastern District Tennessee.
See the American Grand Jury Presentments here, Exhibit 5
Many are now aware of the “obstruction” of justice that has occurred over the past few months where District Attorney James H. Stutts and Grand Jury Foreman Gary Pettway have refused to let Commander Fitzpatrick appear and testify before the Monroe County Grand Jury. Fitzpatrick’s testimony involves the formal charges of “fraud and treason” against Barack Obama.
That refusal was recently recinded by Monroe County and the offer to now appear before the Grand Jury was extended to Commander Fitzpatrick. Of course, we are guessing that the pending charges of “obstruction” against Stutts and Pettway filed by Fitzpatrick had a lot to do with the Court changing its mind.
Tuesday December 1, 2009 was the big day for the Grand Jury hearing. There were a few surprises. Number one, the 13 person Grand Jury that Fitzpatrick was promised he would appear before was dismissed before things got rolling.
In its place a panel of 4 Grand Jury representatives met with Fitzpatrick in the afternoon. The good news is this:
Stutts and Pettway appear to be gone and the panel is now tasked with the responsiblity of deciding if and when Commander Fitzpatrick will appear before the full Grand Jury.
As Fitzparick so elegantly put it – “I made the argument before the panel that this Grand Jury MUST hear the testimony and review the evidence concerning Obama’s criminal charges.
If they don’t agree to convene the Grand Jury, then I am guilty of perjury and would have to be arrested.”
Either way, Fitzpatrick will have his day in Court and someone is going to get formally indicted — we are hoping that somebody will be none other than, Obama for “fraud and treason.”
Last night, at 9 PM, EST on American Grand Jury BlogTalk radio we interviewed Commander Fitzpatrick.
The information you just read came out of that interview. We took the time to make some short excerpts out of the 2 hour program.
We have a few of these MP3 segments posted here. If you would like to listen to Commander Fitzpatrick simply download the segments and play to your heart’s content.
More of these segments will be forth coming over the next few days. MANY THANKS to Arnie Rosner for making and hosting the MP3 segments for our viewers and members.
MP3 number 1: Fitzpatrick gains access to Grand Jury panel
MP3 number 2: Monroe County Grand Jury hearing, December 1, 2009
MP3 number 3: Monroe County Grand Jury hearing, December 1, 2009
Thanks to Phil Dedrick we have some great photos taken at the Courthouse. Phil is an American Grand Jury member and was at the Courthouse with others in support of Commander Fitzpatrick. The photos are wonderful Phil — hope ya’all enjoy!
PS.. Walter Fiztpatrick is the one in the hat, blue jacket, holding the box with all the evidence in it.
M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commander Fitzpatrick is not fooling around. Check out the video above .. he’s fired up.
God protect him.
God Bless and protect this man! He is a ‘natural born hero’!
FOR THE RECORD
MUST SEE ... ping!
Barack Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii and here is your proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyf2RWXLse8
I’ll post it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.