Posted on 11/12/2008 11:17:44 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Leo Donofrio filed a solid lawsuit.
Hard to get behind Berg, his was not a good lawsuit. This, OTOH, is. Do I think it should be pursued, yes? Do I believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Probably. Is there something on Obama's birth certificate he does not want us to see. Foe shizzle. Should a President of the United States have to present his vault copy to take office? Absolutely. I don't know what is on the birth certificate- I do know Obama does not want us to see it.
But with Obama - there is no law. It's Alinsky style anarchy.
Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter re:"natural born citizen" - Before US Supreme Court
PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 10, 2008 – 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.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
As a New Jersey citizen, I have proper standing. In fact, my standing wasn't challenged by the NJ Attorney General's office in their reply brief in defense of the Secretary of State, nor was my standing challenged by Judge Sabatino in his five page opinion from the NJ Appellate Division. Despite there having been no challenges to my standing raised below, out of respect for the United States Supreme Court, I did address the issue in my application for an emergency stay as follows:
Appellant's standing was not challenged in Respondent's reply brief, nor was it challenged in his Honorable Sabatino's order and decision. However, Appellant discusses the issue below in respect to this most Honorable Court's superior jurisdiction. In Ridgewood Education Association v Ridgewood Board Of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. (1995)), the Court stated, "We see no reason why this State's historic liberal approaches to the issue of standing in general....should not apply to taxpayer suits challenging the quasi-legislative actions of local boards of education." Silverman v. Board of Ed., Tp. of Millburn, 134 N.J. Super. 253, 257-58 (Law Div.), aff'd o.b. 131 N.J. Super. 435 (App. Div. 1975).
The policies of justice regarding the sanctity of voting rights were also stated in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178, 814 A.2d 1028 (October 2, 2002). Although the petitioner bringing suit in that case was a political party, the voting rights discussed and protected were those of individuals. Therefore, the reasoning of that case should apply when the petitioner is an individual voter.
Appellant's fundamental right to vote for a candidate who will not be disqualified after the election is now threatened by the inclusion on New Jersey ballots of three ineligible candidates.
"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S 5, 6 (2000)
And finally, Appellant's fundamental right to live in the United States governed by a President and Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally eligible to the office of President is also threatened. Since this action is so very grounded in the interests of justice, and supported by all of the above, Appellant respectfully requests that this court recognize his standing.
While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing,
I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice.
Makes you wonder if "Men in Black" or "The Bilderberg Group" are actually pulling the strings. if I were a conspiracy theorist, with 0bama, I would say Soros or overseas muslims (al queda).
Check out the legal principle called "best evidence".
You come up with the ORIGINAL evidence or you had better have a REAL good explanation why you can't. If you are Barry Soetoro, you will have NO excuse for not presenting best evidence of your birth.
And in common law, and I think in every jurisdiction in the United States, an individual cannot offer his own testimony as to the facts of his own birth. Why not. Because it's hearsay.
You have to come up with the goods. The document that Barry posted would NOT be accepted for a passport. They would want to see the REAL birth certificate. And so would any court.
I agree. The long-form contains a fraudulent home-birth affidavit filed, likely, by Madelyn Payne Dunham.
Just because everyone is after us doesn’t mean they aren’t.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously. :)
bttt
Yes it would. The paper document that it purports to be a picture of would certainly be accepted for a passport application. That's all you get when you request a copy of your birth certificate. That is all I had to give the passport office to get a passport for my son.
You mean a certified copy from your states’s vital records department? One cannot submit just a black and white photocopy, correct?/Just Asking - seoul62......
?
Vault copies?
The Constitution says clearly that a president has to be a natural born citizen. That doesn’t matter?
The Constitution says clearly that a president has to be a natural born citizen. That doesn’t matter?
Yes, it matters. But if Obama presented a certified copy of his birth certificate (the paper version of the document presented online) or perhaps even had someone from the Hawaii Department of Health testify that he was indeed born in Hawaii, then I don't see why the original vault copy of his birth certificate, which presumably is a unique state record document that is never brought forth for any individual, would have to be produced.
Yes, I had to present a certified copy that was sent to me from the state where my son was born and it was accepted by the passport office.
If it's this hard to produce documentation of my very existence in the mosh pit of bureaucratic paperwork I wonder how long, if ever a "vault" copy of Abu Hussein's( Syria's Assad's nickname for our prezident elect) will ever be produced. It took a shorter time being vetted for some government work a couple decades ago.
I had have (can’t remember exactly the reason) a photocopy of my BC that said exact time to the minute, hospital, doctor, etc. Hassle to get it. Why shouldn’t Hussein have to show a copy of that? I don’t know if mine was a “vault” thingie but it wasn’t the generic COLB, like the one Hussein supposedly showed; or like the one his half sister Maya has and she was for sure not born in HI.
Noted, thank you./Just Asking - seoul62......
Thanks for the ping.
OK, but I’ve had others tell me they were turned down with similar documents; that what was required was a Birth Certificate as filed at birth.
And, I can tell you that the “COLB” that Barry presented looks NOTHING like the Hawaii Birth Certificates I have for my son and daughter born in Honolulu in the same approximate time period as our Barry.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ [Below is the original post. Thank you for your help.]
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED
Dear Citizens of the United States of America,
I need your help and the US needs your help.
My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case.
It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.
I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court. The Appellate Division case avoided the Constitutional issue, but the NJ Supreme Court decision raised the Constitutional issue when it specifically said in its order of denial that it had relied on "movant's papers" while at the same time it made no mention of Judge Sabatino's Appellate Division order and opinion.
The NJ Supreme Court specifically relied upon "movant's papers" in their order denying emergency relief and "movants papers" focused on the "natural born citizen" issue.
Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:
"This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."
The US Supreme Court Docket fails to mention the NJ Supreme Court decision and that is completely wrong and improper. This case continues to be subjected to Judicial/Clerical misconduct and it's time that US Citizens, be they Democrat, Republican or 3rd party affiliated, stand up and order that the Clerk's office of the highest Court in the land STOP interfering in a case that is rightly before the US Supreme Court.
This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure. Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio
Obama did not, and will not, produce his real birth certificate, because it will eliminate him from ever taking the oath of office. -- that's been the whole point all along.
It is THE ISSUE of the Century.
Best post EVER on this subject. I don't know what's worse... the fact that this idiocy became an issue in the first place or the fact that folks here REFUSE to LET IT DIE.
1. Why are you so sure about that?
2. Why, if he can prove he was born in Hawaii, would he need to have the authorities bring forth the original vault copy of his birth certificate?
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.