Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
Are you certain about that? I don't know anything about our official relations with Paki then or travel bans or regulations regarding travel bans. I would like to see someone nail all of that down.
There are other cases in the queue.
But denying cert is not quite the same as "dismissing the case". It makes no new law, sets no precedences. They may have just felt that the Donofrio case is not a good one to explore the issue. I tend to agree. If there were no doubt BHO was born in Hawaii, then this case might make some sense, although I'd not be supporting it. But there is some such doubt, and if he were not, then the case is very simple. Removing that doubt, that proving it to be unfounded, is easy and simple too. Thus a case that only addresses whether he was born in the US, is a better case for them.
-PJ
All I can tell you is that someone knowledgeable about this particular angle of the Obama story posted some details about it here some days back.
Sorry, but I don't remember the poster, or any more details than I gave you.
I'm sure someone will pipe up with some info on it.
Here’s the link to the first FR thread on the initial missed deadline to the Berg suit. There were several posted on the same day.
-PJ
***
Here is what I posted about FRCP Rule 36:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111778/posts?page=75#75
Well, then, if the Supreme Court dismisses Donofrio, as they did...what then?
There are other cases in the queue.
But denying cert is not quite the same as “dismissing the case”. It makes no new law, sets no precedences. They may have just felt that the Donofrio case is not a good one to explore the issue. I tend to agree. If there were no doubt BHO was born in Hawaii, then this case might make some sense, although I’d not be supporting it. But there is some such doubt, and if he were not, then the case is very simple. Removing that doubt, that proving it to be unfounded, is easy and simple too. Thus a case that only addresses whether he was born in the US, is a better case for them.
***
Seems to me that they might take 2 representative cases - 1 addressing the BC issue and 1 addressing the definition of “natural born citizen”. They are distinctly separate issues, although both involve BC verification.
This one Freeper BO-Natural BC discussion has gone on for ~ 31 hours and I think there are many other discussions here and eleswhere. I wonder if Malkin, Horowitz, Rush, LGF, etc. are aware that the issue is of real importance to so many key members of their base?
El Gato, I think your last line is the crux of the situation. IMHO, BHO was indeed born on US soil, and if that is the case, then he is a natural born citizen.
By all means, move on to the next battle. Nothing is stopping you.
I suppose there are arguments on both sides.
Not much.
In order for this to be successful requires not on, but several leaps of faith. The case is doomed to failure.
I see people who never heard of “standing” to bring a case are now internet experts. The facts are:
None of these Plaintiff’s have standing to bring the case.
Even if they have standing, they have demonstrated no evidence to support their claim. (and yes I know what Obama’s step grandmother allegedly said - but that is not evidence)> Many here simply are unaware or refuse to understand what it takes for evidence to be admitted in court.
All of these cases, even if the Supreme Court let them go forward, would not survive the first Motion For Summary Disposition at the trial court level.
Finally, as difficult as this is for many to understand, the burden of proof to show Obama is not a citizen, is on Donofrio and Berg and Keyes. Obama, has to prove nothing until such time as the Plaintiff’s show evidence, not conjecture and speculation, that Obama is ineligible.
The thing that troubles me is that so many people who complain about the Left running to court to have a judge erase a loss (See Al Gore in 2000) have no problem with the exact same tactic when they are the losers.
These cases are going nowhere, and it not because of some vast conspiracy.
***
SEE MY POST #698 ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144344/posts?page=698#698
In Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS has already ruled that “ ... 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 ...”
Donofrio is arguing under this opinion and claiming that the process that the New Jersey legislature prescribed INCLUDES the New Jersey Secretary of States duty to certify the eligibility of candidates.
He is ALSO asserting that he HAS standing based on the fact that “ ... its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter ...”
Under the “stare decisis” doctrine, SCOTUS is UNLIKELY to reverse its opinion in Bush v. Gore - that is, SCOTUS would essentially be admitting that an error was made in the previous ruling.
If SCOTUS rules AGAINST Donofrio, then it will LEND CREDENCE to the belief by the left that Bush “stole” the 2000 election ...
See, even if you're right, you're wrong. The Constitution has [effectively] no power, given that events have transpired thus. Its lack of describing a precise method - or Congress's negligence in ever doing this - show its weakness in this regard. By championing for this issue, you are highlighting the ineffectiveness of our Constitution.
And I would like to see the exact text that shows the burden of proof is on the candidate.
You mean Keyes wouldn't have a good chance against McCain? =)
BREAKING NEWS ...
(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
CASE: 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.
We don't have to show you any stinking birth certificate!"
LOL!!!
STE=Q
FROM Leo http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED - WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
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 Dec 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 Dec. 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.
Horowitz is right here.
Bravo!!! Five Stars!!
Below is update from Leo’s web site. Leo and Cort are going to be on Plains this evening beginning at 8:00. 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
You are DH? If so, then you need to understand something. Obama’s COLB is a forgery and you and the other “shutup about it” folks are aiding and abetting that forgery. I don’t care how many people voted for the marxist. If he is not eligible, and there is no proof that he is, then he has to step aside. If he is eligible and is just hiding his BC because of something embarrasing, too frickin bad. He needs to cough up his original BC. Just like John McCain did when the Media was making his birth an issue.
"At some point" could be a long time in the future. Too long for the health of what's left of the Republic created by the Constitution.
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.