The Haley nbC Issue and the CNN Spin

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 23 Jan 2024 | Joseph DeMaio

[woodpusher]

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42097.html Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Ciotizenship Eligibility Requirements, Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, January 11, 2016, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, R42097, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

It may be noted that some have argued that the relevant common meaning of natural born citizen that was prevalent in 18th century America should not be the one that was actually applicable in the American colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and which was adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776 (and which, as noted by Justice Story, formed the “foundation” for American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as one derived from what has been described as a “philosophical treatise”¹⁰⁰ on the law of nations by a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s.¹⁰¹ This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term “natural born citizens.”¹⁰² It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include, in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787.¹⁰³

Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of Vattel on the framers in employing the term “natural born” in relation to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is highly speculative at best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis within American jurisprudence. Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress),¹⁰⁴ there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787,¹⁰⁵ and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers,^{106 or in any of the state ratifying conventions.107}

It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S. Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation, a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law. In a state case cited with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, an extensive legal analysis of the question of natural born citizenship under the law of the United States by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in New York in 1844, found that the laws in all of the American colonies, and then in all of the states after independence, followed the English common law principles of jus soli, that is, that birth in the territory governed citizenship at birth, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents.¹⁰⁸ Sandford found that it would be “inconceivable” that the framers, in drafting the Constitution, would abandon without explicit comment or explanation in the document, the existing law in all of the colonies, and then in all of the states, of who were natural born citizens in favor of an “international” or “natural” law theory of citizenship by “descent” (through one’s father), an argument pressed by one of the litigants relying, in part, on Vattel. Addressing specifically the question of the use of the term “natural born citizen” in the federal Constitution as one of the qualifications for President, Vice Chancellor Sandford found the following:

It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle that prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union.... The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section that defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long-established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.¹⁰⁹

The treatise in question by Emmerich de Vattel was a work concerning the “law of nations,” which we would now classify generally as “international law.” However, the concept of citizenship within a particular country is one governed not by international law or law of nations, but rather is governed by municipal law, that is, the internal law of each country.¹¹⁰ Vattel’s writings on citizenship by “descent” reflected in many circumstances what the law or practice may have been in certain European nations at the time—that is, that citizenship followed the nationality or citizenship of one’s father, as opposed to the place of birth.¹¹¹ This concept, although prevalent on the European Continent was, even as expressly noted in Vattel’s work itself, clearly not the law in England or thus the American colonies,¹¹² and clearly was not the concept and common understanding upon which U.S. law was based. James Madison, often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” expressly explained in the House of Representatives in the First Congress, in 1789, that with regard to citizenship the “place” of birth, and not “parentage” was the controlling concept adopted in the United States.¹¹³ Additionally, the Supreme Court in 1971 simply and succinctly explained, after citing historical legal precedent: “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”¹¹⁴ Again in 1998, the Supreme Court expressly recognized jus soli, the place of birth, as controlling in the United States, noting that in this country “citizenship does not pass by descent” except as provided by Congress in statute.¹¹⁵

The “common” understanding of the term “natural born” citizen during the revolutionary period, the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and in the generation after, was that of one who was a citizen “at birth” (and the principal factor in the United States, as in England, was the place of birth within the country, rather than that of ancestry, lineage, or descent, except as provided in statute). This common understanding and usage has continued up until this day as the term “natural born” citizen has entered the popular, legal lexicon as defined as: “A citizen by birth, as distinguished from a citizen who has been naturalized,”¹¹⁶ and the meaning of “natural born” in common, general usage as “having a specified status or character by birth.”¹¹⁷

____________________

¹⁰⁰ Craig v. United States, 340 Fed. Appx. 471, 473 (10th Cir. Okla. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 141 (2009).

¹⁰¹ Emmerich de Vattel, THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE, APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS (London 1760)[hereinafter THE LAW OF NATIONS]. The 1760 Volume is an English translation of the original French, E. De Vattel, DROIT DES GENS: OU, PRINCIPLES DE LA LOI NATURELLE, APPLIQUES A LA CONDUCT & AUX AFFAIRES DES NATIONS & DES SOUVERAINS (1758)[hereinafter DROIT DES GENS].

¹⁰² In the original French, the sentence reads: “Les naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.” (DROIT DES GENS, supra at Ch. XIX, p. 111). In the English translation available at the time of the framing of the Constitution, translated in English in 1760 and in 1787, the terms “naturels or indigenes” were simply interpreted as “natives or indigenes”: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” THE LAW OF NATIONS, supra at Vol. I, Book 1, Ch. XIX, §212, at p. 92 (1760), and at p. 166 of the 1787 edition. The English phrase “natural born citizen” in early French translations of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, §1, cl. 5, however, was interpreted as either “citoyen-né” ([a “born citizen”] John Stevens or Warren Livingston, EXAMEN DU GOUVERNEMENT D’ANGLETERRE, COMPARE AUX CONSTITUTIONS DES ÉTAT-UNIS,” at 257 (Paris 1789)), or “citoyen né dans les États-Unis,” ([a “citizen born in the United States”], L.-P. Conseil, MÉLANGES POLITIQUES ET PHILOSPHIQUES, “Constitution Des États-Unis,” at 160 (Paris 1833), and M. Du Ponceau, EXPOSÉ SOMMAIRE DE LA CONSTITUTION DES ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE, at 45 (Paris 1837)), or in more recent French translations, “citoyen de naissance” (“citizen at birth”). None of these French expressions for the English term “natural born citizen” were used by Vattel.

¹⁰³ Compare the 1760 London edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations, to the 1797 English translation (London 1797), at Book 1, Ch. XIX, p. 101 (Lib. of Congress No. JX2414 .E5 1797).

¹⁰⁴ I Farrand at 437-438 (Mr. Martin, of Maryland).

¹⁰⁵ Farrand’s work, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, includes the personal notes of the following framers: Robert Yates of New York, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of Massachusetts, James McHenry of Maryland, William Pierce of Georgia, William Paterson of New Jersey, Alexander Hamilton of New York, and George Mason of Virginia, as well as the Journal kept by the Secretary of the Convention, Major William Jackson. I Farrand, supra at xi-xxii.

¹⁰⁶ THE FEDERALIST: A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, WRITTEN IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AS AGREED UPON BY THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1787 (New York 1788).

¹⁰⁷ There were only two apparent references in all of the state ratifying debates to Vattel: one by a delegate in South Carolina in relation to a nation’s duty to honor treaties (4 ELLIOT’S DEBATES at 278), and one in Pennsylvania mentioned with other “political writers” to support the notion that not all of the rights of the people of a nation could be “completely enumerated” in a constitution. 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES at 453-454.

¹⁰⁸ Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 242, 244 (1 Sand. ch. 583) (1844). This case was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, at 664, 674, and also by the U.S. Court of Appeals in In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 909 (Cal. Cir. 1884).

¹⁰⁹ Lynch v. Clark at 246-247. Emphasis in original.

¹¹⁰ Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 162 (1830); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, (1939); Lynch v. Clark at 249; see also Frederick Van Dyne (Assistant Solicitor, Department of State), CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, at 3-4 (New York 1904).

¹¹¹ See discussion of European nations following concepts of citizenship by “descent” through one’s father, in Flournoy, Dual Nationality and Election, 30 YALE LAW JOURNAL, at 554-559. Vattel explained that the citizenship of “children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,” and that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ....” Vattel, LAW OF NATIONS, at Ch. XIX, p. 101 (1797 ed.). It is interesting to recognize that Vattel never expressly postulated a “two-citizen” parent requirement for what he described as natives or indigenes. Rather, grammatically, the plural of parent or relative (parens) merely conforms to the plural subject of “natives” or “indegenes.” That is, for example, if the rule is that the “children born in the United States of foreign diplomats” are not to be considered natural born “citizens” of the United States under common law principles, such statement does not necessarily require that both parents must be foreign diplomats to deny such U.S. citizenship status to that child. See, e.g., In re Thenault, 47 F.Supp. 952 (D.D.C. 1942).

¹¹² Vattel, LAW OF NATIONS, at Ch. XIX, p. 102 (1797 ed.). See discussion by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, in Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 A. 360 (Conn. 1886): “In Field’s International Code, 132, it is said: ‘A legitimate child, wherever born, is a member of the nation of which its father at the time of its birth was a member.’ Upon this Morse, in his work on Citizenship, p. 17, thus comments: ‘This is the law in most European States (Westlake, p. 16; Foelix, p. 54), but not in England or in the United States.’”

¹¹³ “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States ....” James Madison, explaining the citizenship eligibility of Representative-elect William Smith, in the election contest of Ramsay v. Smith, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (1789), in Clarke and Hall, CASES OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS IN CONGRESS, FROM THE YEAR 1789 TO 1834, INCLUSIVE, at p. 33 (Washington 1834).

¹¹⁴ Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971).

¹¹⁵ Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 434, n.11 (1998).

¹¹⁶ BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY, at 831 (“natural-born citizen”) (3rd ed. 1969). See also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, at 278 (“natural-born citizen”) (9th ed. 2009) “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

¹¹⁷ WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNABRIDGED, at p. 1507 (1976) (note specific reference to presidential eligibility). It may also be noted that the English word “natural,” according to the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, is rooted in the “Middle English (in the sense ‘having a certain status by birth’) ….”

Early targets of birther nonsense were military personnel. Some swallowed the scam and paid the price. They decided to disobey lawful orders because Obama was not the lawful President/CinC. Just a few of the more notable cases taken from the officer ranks.

LTC Dr. Terry Lakin

For an officer, dismissal from the service is the equivalent of an enlisted servicemember receiving a dishonorable discharge. For an officer with 17 years of service, it means never getting a retirement check.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial_of_Terry_Lakin

Before Lakin went to court-martial, it was found by the judge that President Obama's eligibility (and hence his birth certificate) had no bearing on the case. Lakin pleaded guilty to two charges while pleading not-guilty to one other. Despite recanting his original concerns and asking the jury for leniency, Lakin was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to dismissal from the Army, loss of pay and allowances, and a prison term of six months. Lakin was released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks after serving five of his six months. He was later denied a medical license in Kansas as a result of his dereliction of duty.

Major Stefan F. Cook, Army Reserve

The Army revoked his orders and his access to the base where he worked for a defense contractor. He was fired from defense contractor Simtech.

CAPT Connie Rhodes

Judge Land in the Rhodes case:

"The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel's pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court's show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court."

[woodpusher]

but the Roberts court “evaded” them all per Justice Thomas’s testimony before a sub-committee in Congress

When was this?

For birther purposes, April 15, 2010. This may help explain why birthers are sanctioned for frivolous filing when they take their crap to court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco3igZmHXQ

Steve Christiansen

Clarence Thomas (Full Video)

Clarence Thomas admits they are avoiding the Constitutional requirements of being a Natural Born citizen to be President

filmed on April 15th, 2010 during the Appropriations Subcomittee on General Government. Here is the audio exchange between Rep. Jose Serrano and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is what happens when the courts run amok.

Clarence Thomas made a joke which was followed by laughter. He has not appeared before a congressional committee or subcommittee since.

The video is 32 seconds long.

IN12155

Appearances by Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices at Congressional Committee and Subcommittee Hearings (1960-2022)

May 2, 2023
Congressional Research Service
IN12155

Clarence Thomas did not appear before any congressional subcommittee from 2011 to 2022. The report does not cover past 2022.

Thomas appeared thirteen times, twelve at the House and one at the Senate.

His wife, Ginni Thomas appeared before the J6 committee.

[woodpusher]

SCOTUS needs to speak.

SCOTUS lacks authority to give advisory opinions. President Washington requested an advisory opinion and Chief Justice John Jay, joined by Justices Wilson, Blair, Iredell and Paterson refused, August 8, 1793:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-13-02-0263

handwritten by Chief Justice John Jay, footnotes omitted

From Supreme Court Justices
Philadelphia
8 Augt 1793

Sir

We have considered the previous Question stated in a Letter written to us by your Direction, by the Secretary of State, on the 18th of last month.

The Lines of Separation drawn by the Constitution between the three Departments of Government—their being in certain Respects checks on each other—and our being Judges of a court in the last Resort—are Considerations which afford strong arguments against the Propriety of our extrajudicially deciding the questions alluded to; especially as the Power given by the Constitution to the President of calling on the Heads of Departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as expressly limited to executive Departments.

we exceedingly regret every Event that may cause Embarrassment to your administration; but we derive Consolation from the Reflection, that your Judgment will discern what is Right, and that your usual Prudence, Decision and Firmness will surmount every obstacle to the Preservation of the Rights, Peace, and Dignity of the united States. We have the Honor to be, with perfect Respect, Sir, your most obedient and most h’ble servants

John Jay
James Wilson
John Blair
Ja. Iredell
Wm Paterson

SCOTUS can only rule upon cases or controversies where they have territorial and subject matter jurisdiction. In order to have a party who has suffered a particularized injury in volving the definition of natural born citizen, it may require a losing Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate to be a plaintiff. Nobody who has ever been a candidate for said offices has ever been damn fool enough to bring such a Complaint.

Natural born citizen is a requirement to hod the office of President or Vice-President. It is not a requirement to be a candidate for either office; e.g. one need not be 35 ears old to be a candidate, but if one is not 35 years old on inauguration day, one may not assume office.

[one guy in new jersey]

As of Obama v. McCain in 2008, both major parties deliberately simultaneously fielded non-NBC candidates for POTUS.

By doing this, both major parties showed without shame that they equally revile the Constitution of the United States.

Conveniently for the two COTUS-hating major parties, the situation in Fall 2008 was that of MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction. So, neither party could or would challeng the presence of the other party’s candidate on the national election ballot of any state.

New Jersey’s Fall 2008 ballot (which had three, count-’em, three ineligible candidates on it) was challenged in court by a NJ citizen/voter Mr. Donofrio without the insuperable obstacle of a failure to demonstrate initial standing to sue, due to the relatively lenient state-level standing requirements more or less unique to New Jersey. The case was never addressed substantively but at least it wasn’t thrown out based on standing.

Provided Trump wisely picks a Plain Vanilla U.S. American VP running mate, devoid of any and all Foreign Spice, he would have the standing to sue in state court all over the U.S. the Biden-Harris ticket (designating all 50 Secretaries of States as defendants) based on domestically-born Harris having two full tablespoons of Foreign Spice, one from each parent. A no-no.

[woodpusher]

As of Obama v. McCain in 2008, both major parties deliberately simultaneously fielded non-NBC candidates for POTUS.

By doing this, both major parties showed without shame that they equally revile the Constitution of the United States.

[...]

New Jersey’s Fall 2008 ballot (which had three, count-’em, three ineligible candidates on it) was challenged in court by a NJ citizen/voter Mr. Donofrio without the insuperable obstacle of a failure to demonstrate initial standing to sue, due to the relatively lenient state-level standing requirements more or less unique to New Jersey. The case was never addressed substantively but at least it wasn’t thrown out based on standing.

The Court noted that the Donofrio pro se petition for an injunction was untimely filed, that Donofrio misinterpreted the cited statute to apply to candidates rather than electors, that both the McCain and Obama campaigns were so dismissive of the Petition that they declined to seek to intervene or appear as amici, that Donofrio failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, including his interpretation of the Secretary's functions; and that similar litigation in the federal courts challenging the respective qualifications for office of McCain and Obama had been uniformly unsuccessful.

Your claim that "both major parties deliberately simultaneously fielded non-NBC candidates for POTUS" is without legal support. In Elliott v. Cruz, the Court stated, "Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a 'natural born citizen' includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth."

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/22677941?access_key=key-1xz5n7vg96tywp2ukwsc

Donofrio v. Wells, No. AM-0153-08T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 30, 2008) (denying application for emergent relief challenging eligibility of McCain and Obama), aff’d, No. _____ (N.J. Oct. 31, 2008), application for stay denied, 129 S. Ct. 752 (2008)

ORDER ON EMERGENT APPLICATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-
MOTION NO. AN-0153-08T2
BEFORE PART: F
JUDGE(S): CARCHMAN; SABATINO

LEO C. DONIFRIO
Plaintiff v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS
Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
Respondent

EMERGENT APPLICATION
Filed: 10/27/08

By: Leo C. Donifrio, Pro se,
Plaintiff

ANSWER
Filed: 10/29/08
By: Attorney General, for Respondent Secretary of State

ORDER

THIS MATTER HAVING BEEN DULY PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS ON THIS 30TH OF DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008, HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

EMERGENT APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING TJHE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE BALLOT ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 19:13-22

SUPPLEMENTAL

Appellant, pro se, Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey resident, presents as emergent application that, in essence, is an action

[2]

in lieu of prerogative writs against the Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells ("the Secretary") regarding the ballots to be used statewide in the forthcoming General Election to be held next Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Appellant seeks an order compelling the Secretary to fulfill what he contends is her alleged duty under N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to conduct an independent verification of the qualifications for office of the two major party candidates for President of the United States, John Sidney McCain, III ("McCain") and Barack Hussein Obama ("Obama"), in order for the name of those candidates and their respective slates of electors to appear on the ballot in this State.¹

Specifically, points to the following underscored portion of the statute:

The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election. This statement, in addition to the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, if any such have been included in any such certificates or petition filed with him, shall contain the names and residences, the offices for which they are respectively nominated, and the names of the parties by which or the political appellation under which they are respectively nominated. Candidates nominated directly by petition without distinctive political appellation, shall be certified as independent candidates. Similar statements shall be made, certified and forwarded, when

____________________

¹ Counsel for the McCain and Obama campaigns were notified of the pendency of this emergent application, and were supplied with copies of appellant's papers through the office of the Attorney General. Both campaigns declined to seek to intervene or appear as amici in this matter.

[3]

vacancies are filled subsequently, according to law.

[N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 (emphasis added).]

Appellant contends that the phrase "by law entitled" in N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 refers to the Presidential candidates themselves and not to their electors or voters, and that the statute thereby requires the Secretary to verify the legal qualifications of McCain and Obama to serve as President.

In particular, appellant raises questions about whether under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, McCain and Obama are each "a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of [the federal] Constitution." Appellant notes that McCain was born, albeit to parents who were both United States citizens, on a federal military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, territory which was not a part of the United States when the Constitution was first adopted. Appellant further notes publicized allegations that Obama, whose father was not an American citizen, was born in Kenya or Indonesia, rather than the State of Hawaii, and that Obama allegedly has not presented his original birth certificate to document his citizenship. Although appellant does not adopt these accusations of disqualification, he contends that they require independent investigation by the Secretary, notwithstanding that McCain and Obama have been nominated at the respective national conventions of both major political parties and are on the general election ballots of the other forty-nine states.

Having reviewed appellant's claim, and the written opposition of the Attorney General, we are satisfied that Appellant has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, including his interpretation of the Secretary's functions under N.J.S.A. 19:13-22, and thus his request for extraordinary injunctive relief on the eve of a national election must be rejected. Crowe v. DeGioia 90 N.J. 126, 132 (1982). Moreover, appellant has unreasonably delayed in filing the present litigation on October 27, 2008, which arises out of the Secretary's action in certifying electors for McCain and Obama on September 22, 2008. See N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 (requiring objection to the certificates of nomination for Presidential electors to be filed within four days of the filing deadline). See also McKenzie v. Corzine, 396 N.J. Super. 405, 414 (App. Div. 2007). We also note that there is no demonstration of immediate and irreparable harm, inasmuch as any challenge to the election results can await the completion of

[4]

the election, and the election will not convene at the Electoral College until December 15, 2008. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; see also 3 U.S.C.A. § 7("The electors of the President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.").

The public interest in an orderly election and the balance of equities, given the imminence of the election (and the printing of millions of ballots and the submission of numerous absentee ballots already), overwhelmingly weigh against appellant's claims for relief.

Finally, we note in passing that similar litigation in the federal courts challenging the respective qualifications for office of McCain and Obama has been uniformly unsuccessful. See Berg v. Obama, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Civil Action No. 08-4083, 2008 WL 4691981 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2004;) Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008)]; See also U.S. S. Res. 511, 110th Congress (as passed by Senate, April 10, 2008; (declaring that McCain is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution)(co-sponsored, inter alia, by Senator Obama).

Appellant's motion for leave to appeal the Secretary's alleged inaction is denied and his emergent application is consequently dismissed.

FOR THE COURT,

/s/ ____________________________
JACK M. SABATINO

The New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed a Donofrio appeal with one sentence:

This matter having come before the Court on 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, Appellant Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied.

Application to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in a few words.

Dec 8 2008 Application (08A407) denied by the Court.

[one guy in new jersey]

protest too much, much?

[woodpusher]

The facts hurt?

[one guy in new jersey]

No, but fake education by firehose is a little disconcerting....

[woodpusher]

No, but fake education by firehose is a little disconcerting.

All I did was quote the short decision in the obscure court case you cited as authority. Well, to be fair I also quoted the one sentence denial of the appeal to the NJ Supreme Court and the five word denial of the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Presented with the full text, any reader is enabled to educate him or her self about your claims.

[one guy in new jersey]

Justice Thomas admits that SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.

They know the Constitutional term NBC is not being accorded it’s true, undiluted definition, and is thereby being sapped of its power to separate the goats from the sheep every four years.

It’s the only function the term NBC explicitly performs in the whole of U.S. law. Why must it be denied?

[woodpusher]

Justice Thomas admits that SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.

April 15, 2010.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco3igZmHXQ

Clarence Thomas made a joke which was followed by laughter. This may help explain why birthers are sanctioned for frivolous filing when they take their crap to court.

https://casetext.com/case/mauro-motors-inc-v-old-cargo-llc

2nd Circuit, Apr 22, 2011

Mauro Motors Inc. v. Old Carco LLC

Opinion

No. 10-3933-bk.

April 22, 2011.

Appeal from decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.) affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Gonzalez, C.J.) denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the district court's decision is AFFIRMED.

Leo Donofrio, Stephen W. Pidgeon, Pidgeon Donofrio GP, Everett, WA, for Appellants.

Brett J. Berlin, Jeffrey B. Ellman, Beth R. Heifetz, Kevyn Duane Orr, (Corinne Ball, on the brief), Jones Day, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants are automobile dealers whose dealership contracts with Chrysler were terminated by Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy and restructuring. They moved the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its decision to allow Chrysler to exclude these contracts from the assets it sold to Fiat and to then reject these contracts after the sale under 11 U.S.C. § 365. We assume the parties' familiarity with, the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.

A motion to reconsider a judgment must be rejected if "there was an opportunity to have the ground now relied upon to set aside the judgment fully litigated in the original action." Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Capitol Records, 779 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks, omitted). Appellants present no evidence or arguments in this collateral attack that could not have been presented in a timely appeal from the bankruptcy court's original decision. Having failed to appeal from that decision, Appellants may not now attack it collaterally absent newly discovered evidence of fraud on the court. No such evidence has been presented, so Appellants' motion to reconsider was properly denied.

As to the merits of Appellants' claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.

The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that there was no fraud on the court. As a result, we hereby AFFIRM the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of Appellants' motion to reconsider.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Preview_f6aa1c93-5268-46b9-ba2c-6d3258525c47.pdf

In Barnett v. Hobbs, 12/05/2022, The Superior Court of Maricopa County stated, "However, the latest filing by Plaintiff causes the Court concern as to whether Mr. Donofrio may be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, despite the Court having the above discussion with him on the record in open court. To be clear, the Court makes no finding that Mr. Donofrio has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; indeed, Mr. Donofrio's name appears nowhere on the instant motion. The Court will not conduct any investigation into the issue or refer the issue to the New Jersey Bar. However, the Court will remind Plaintiff and Mr. Donofrio that Mr. Donofrio is not permitted to practice law at this time and he has certified to the New Jersey Bar that he does not draft or review legal documents or render legal assistance or advice in any jurisdiction. In the future, if Mr. Donofrio wishes to provide those services to a litigant in this State, it appears to this Court that Mr. Donofrio must adjust his status with the New Jersey Bar, and to appear pro hac vice in any Court in this State, he must first secure local, sponsoring counsel and fully comply with Rule 39(a) of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court emphasizes that the issue of Mr. Donofrio's licensure had no bearing on the Court's substantive ruling on the motion brought by Plaintiff."

Birther attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in legal fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust, April 20, 2012, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That's what happens when a mountain of nonsense is found to have been frivolous.

[one guy in new jersey]

The problem is, it’s not at all a joke. Or a punchline.

Was it a joke to John Jay? To George Washington? Hamilton, Madison?

It’s certainly not funny.

Justice Thomas was not speaking untruthfully.

They are evading the question.

Is that funny to you?

[woodpusher]

Was it a joke to John Jay? To George Washington? Hamilton, Madison?

Jay and Hamilton went on to elect Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe who all lacked two citizen parents. Hamilton had a French and a British parent who were married, but not to each other.

Justice Thomas was not speaking untruthfully.

Justice Thomas cracked a joke. The crowd laughed. Your attempt to make something of an obvious joke is as pathetic as "utterly frivolous" filing in court.

[one guy in new jersey]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton for that matter, were all otherwise eligible so did not need to be NBCs.

Yet they specified NBCs going forward.

For you to argue about apparently.

[one guy in new jersey]

Monroe too.

All otherwise eligible hence their candidacies and presidencies do not have anything to do with the NBC clause.

Did you not know that?

[one guy in new jersey]

Hamilton was a bastard brat of a scotch peddlar.

[woodpusher]

Hamilton was a bastard brat of a scotch peddlar.

The people of Scotland are Scottish or Scots. Scotch is a golden nectar handed down to the Scottish people by the gods.

https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-6/alexander-hamilton-childhood-2

James Hamilton was born in 1718 (H I 6), the fourth of nine sons in this very wealthy, aristocratic family. In those days, the eldest son inherited all the family wealth. There were, however, ways in which wealthy families made certain that all the children in the family had a share of the family wealth. They would, for example, be handed positions of authority in the government or the Church, or arrangements would be made for them to marry into wealthy families. There was no reason to believe that James Hamilton would be treated any differently.

The wealth and family station into which he was born did not prevent James Hamilton from engaging in what was to become a life long pattern of self-defeating behavior. This pattern was already in evidence when, at age 19, James set out for the Leeward Islands to seek his fortune. He arrived on St. Kitts in 1737(H I 6).

Hamilton's father left when Hamilton was eight, never to be heard from again. Hamilton's French mother died when Hamilton was twelve.

https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-6/alexander-hamilton-childhood-3

Thus, at the respective ages of eleven and fifteen, Alexander and James had to cope with what today would be called severe emotional deprivation; abandonment by their father, the death of their mother, the suicide of their guardian. Many children would have been emotionally devastated by this situation. But not Alexander; his determination, motivation, and drive moved into high gear.

In short order, fifteen-year old James became apprenticed to a carpenter, and Alexander moved in with a friend's family. He worked full time at the Cruger wholesale export firm, where he had worked since he was nine years old. He took on increasing responsibilities, advanced quickly, and assumed increasingly greater levels of responsibility. Young Alexander dealt with vendors many years his senior, and made complex business decisions. At the Cruger firm, he learned the foundations of business and finance. By the time he was fourteen, he was running the entire operation, purchasing and selling cargos, and directing experienced sea captains with the air of clear and confident authority.

[woodpusher]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton for that matter, were all otherwise eligible so did not need to be NBCs.

Yet they specified NBCs going forward.

Who is "they," and where did "they" specify your absurd nonsense? There were no fruitloops birther clowns back then. Leo Donofrio has been claimed to be the "Father of the Two Citizen Parents Lie."

The early Presidents did not have two citizen parents.

George Washington, 1789, 1793
Thomas Jefferson, 1801, 1805
James Madison, 1809, 1813
James Monroe, 1817, 1821
Andrew Jackson, 1829, 1834

All born to foreign nationals. The grandfather clause declared as eligible, all those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. NBC never required two citizen parents and neither the Constitution as a whole, nor the qualifications clause, nor the grandfather clause made any reference to parentage.

The grandfather clause applied to those who were not born citizens of the United States, but who became citizens before the adoption of the Constitution. It includes those who were born aliens in a foreign land who immigrated after American independence and who were naturalized by a State before the Constitution was ratified.

Two citizen parents was not a legal requirement in the 18th, 19th, or 20th century, and is not a legal requirement in the 21st century.

There have been plenty of opportunities for the false birther blather requirement of two citizen parents to have been invoked. There is no American century in which a candidate without two citizen parents did not run for President or Vice-President. None has ever been disqualified based on birther blather.

Chester Arthur, 1881, Republican Vice President and later President. Arthur was born to an British subject, Irish citizen father.

Charles Evans Hughes, 1916 Republican nominee, lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Hughes' father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen.

Barack Obama, 2009, 2013 Democrat President. Born to a Kenyan father. Determined by court to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz, 2016 Republican candidate. Born in Canada to a Cuban father. Determined by court to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

Bobby Jindal, 2016, Republican candidate, born in the United States to two Indian parents.

Marco Rubio, 2016, Repuiblican candidate, born in the United States to two Cuban parents.

Kamala Harris, 2020, Democrat Vice President. Born in the United States to two foreign nationals.

Nimrata "Nikki" Haley, 2024 Republican candidate, born in the United States to two foreign nationals.

Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Republican candidate, born in the United States to two foreign nationals.

[nesnah]

It was maybe Tuesday this past week I was listening to David Webb during his program on SiriusXM.

When this subject came up, he ABSOLUTELY FOLDED like a cheap lawn chair. Said “This isn’t the sort of thing we should be talking about”.

Well, David, I won’t be listening to you anymore.

[Reily]

A professional resume like Hamilton’s is proof why can’t improve the Founding Fathers basic structure of the Constitution. Others had similar resumes!

Repeal the 17th Amendment!
Rid the nation of this Wlisonian “Progressive” abomination!
State legislatures can’t do worse!