Posted on 12/08/2008 10:39:20 AM PST by SteadyJohn
The Barack Obama citizenship case emanating from courts here in Connecticut is still docketed at SCOTUS. Cort Wrotnowswki v Susan Bysiewicz, CT Secretary of State, raised much the same issues as his own case (Donofrio v. Wells) reports Leo C. Donofrio this morning.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the Donofrio suit for oral arguments.....
(Excerpt) Read more at steadyhabits.wordpress.com ...
"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." - Donofrio
I hope not. Having decided not to hear Donofrio's case based on its merits then another suit arguing the same issues won't get any further. Future suits need to approach the argument from different directions.
You quoted from the website — “ Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds.”
LOL..., who is this “Baghdad Bob”???
Sure, “I won because ‘it’s in their minds...’ “... that’s a pretty good one...
There was no mention of merit. Stay was denied. Beyond that, you’re speculating.
This is driving me nuts. Could it be or not? No not the biggest question, the second biggest question,... Will this get swept under the rug? And ... What would happen if it was proven he wasn't eligible to be the Prez? Not technically, but socially. I think there are MANY places where people aren't as ready to accept or believe it could be the truth as much as us here on the Freep. Thoughts?...
Sure. The court refused to take the case in spite of the merits. Makes a lot of sense.
Source, please. Otherwise, you're speculating.
Not hard to reach the conclusion that Donofrio's case was turned down based on the merits or lack there of.
Thank you for your speculation, as if there weren't enough of that floating around already.
Nay Sayers, hold on now. As the MSM slowly starts picking this up, it’s going to titillate the uneducated masses. There still is time . . . but buy your guns and ammo anyway.
No reason to take any chances.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/
Seems like theres precident anyway.
“Perkins v. Elg
No. 454
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939*
307 U.S. 325
Syllabus
1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . “ was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. “
But what does that have to do with defining “Natural Born Citizen”?
Not to mention all the deep denial out there as well.
Not to mention all the deep denial out there as well.
There is also a case coming from California which might be filed with SCOTUS today (Alan Keyes) challenging Obama’s citizenship.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Below is update from Leo’s web site. Leo and Cort are NOW on Plains Radio Network 8:13E. The Freeper Joe Thunder will be on Lan Lamphere at 10:30.
WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Cort Wrotnowski
Thanks for providing me with this piece. Interesting!
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.