Click images to enlarge. Also available on Scribd as a pdf.[Update: Visit NaturalBornCitizen for periodic updates.]
[Update: Jim Anderer interviewed about lawsuit on Fox Business on 12/29/09]
[Update: Filed: Rule 60 Motion To Reconsider on Behalf of 21 Rejected Chrysler Dealers]
[Update: Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon will represent former Chrysler dealers using Quo Warranto. Also see exclusive story at The Right Side of Life.]
[Update: Copies of Leo Donofrio's three legal briefs on Scribd.]
[Update: Video of Jim Anderer being interviewed on Fox Business News, Dec. 4, 2009. Anderer is the lead plaintiff in Donofrio/Pidgeon lawsuit]
To the best of my ability, I have created these three graphics to illustrate the Quo Warranto process, which is believed by New Jersey constitutional attorney, Leo Donofrio, to be the appropriate legal means by which Americans can legally remove Barack Obama before his first term expires. Another constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has a different interpretation of the law. Apuzzo's links are provided at the end of this article.
Mr. Donofrio has written three extensive legal briefs about this subject on his blog, and answered thousands of questions from the public, but at this writing his blog, NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com, is offline.
Quo Warranto is a legal proceeding that asks the question, "By what authority does this person hold office?" Since Barack Obama has dual citizenship with Britain through his father, he does not meet our framers' eligibility requirements for President, which states that only a "natural born Citizen" qualifies for the presidency. A "natural born Citizen" is a person born on U.S. soil of parents who are both U.S. citizens. Obama's father was born in Kenya while it was under the legal jurisdiction of Britain. Thus Obama Sr. was a British Subject, and his citizenship governed Obama Jr's birth. Obama openly admits his dual citizenship on his official web site linked above.
An "interested person" as described in statute 16-3503 needs to file a request for a quo warranto proceeding with the District Court in the District of Columbia because that is the place where Obama holds office. Mr. Donofrio argues this is the proper venue for a quo warranto proceeding because the Office of the President is in D.C.
Barack Obama is a usurper to the Office of President. Every bill he signs, every command he gives to the military as Commander in Chief, and all of his executive decisions, including the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional, and thus illegal.
An interested person would be someone harmed by an official action of the usurper, such as an appointed civil servant who has been fired, demoted, or otherwise injured through an executive decision by Obama. For example, Inspector General Gerald Walpin and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor were forced to leave their jobs. There may be many more civil servants who were harmed as well.
Another option would be for a large group of retired military officers to file a petition to the court as "third persons," under 16-3502, and ask the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney to file a writ on their behalf for the sake of the military in particular, and the public in general.
Mr. Donofrio is adamant that active military personnel should not attempt to pursue quo warranto because there might be personal repurcussions for challening their Commander in Chief.
I should also point out that constitutional Attorney Mario Apuzzo, also of New Jersey, has taken a different approach to the eligibility question in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Readers will find a wealth of information at Mr. Apuzzo's blog. Check his blog for recent updates on the pending case.
I respect the work done by both of these attorneys, even though they are not in full agreement on how the issue should be handled. I don't know which of their arguments will win the day in court, but I think it's important we understand the options, and pursue every possible angle.
[Editor's Note: Links to statutes 16-3502 and 16-3503 used to be available through http://michie.lexisnexis.com/ but for unknown reasons, they no longer work.]
Tour QW graphics are very fine, but I DO think it would be helpful to note that there are interpretations of the law other than those given by Leo,
ReplyDeleteMario Apuzzo has quite a different "take" on the matter and there is certainly nothing wrong with two attorneys having differing views - happens all the time, in fact. The case Mario presents is at least equally persuasive and, in fact, is incorporated in his Kerchner et al v. Obama et al proceeding now before the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court on the way to SCOTUS where it will certainly cause some angst ... and possibly even the recusal of at least two of the Justices if they are being intellectually honest (HA!).
Ginsburg because she has pubicly stated her belief that her grandson (apparently born in France) is a "natural born citizen" which certainly disqualifies her. Sotomayor because she was appointed by someone who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies (and she is thereby beholden to that man - and possibly even has her position in SCOTUS in jeopardy because of this lack of eligibility).
There may even be other SCOTII (plural??) who should recuse themselves since I've not made more than a cursory check on the matter, but at least these two are certain candidates for "doing the right thing" as their judicial integrity should demand.
You might even be able to conceptualize graphics for that??? In the meantive at least a mention of other QW possiblilities might be in order if you've studied Mario's "take" on the matter.
One thing is for sure ... with the early January 2010 date for filing the Appeals brief, things ARE progressing from a legal standpoint but the so-called "wheels of justice" are square and poorly-oiled. They do, however continue to grind along.
And keep in mind Cicero's (Roman Statesman, orator, and author)comment in 42 BC:
"A nation can survive its' fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor--He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation--he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city--he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."
jayjay,
ReplyDeleteYou were right to point out my omission, and so my comments have been amended to reflect Mario's efforts to reveal the truth about Obama's lack of eligibility.
Re: "A "natural born Citizen" is a person born on U.S. soil of parents who are both U.S. citizens."
ReplyDeleteThe original meaning of Natural Born, which stems from the British common law and the laws in the American colonies, is simply "born in the country." It was used in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as the equivalent of the term Native Born that we use today.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Prominent senators or not, they are only partially correct. Furthermore, while members of Congress can express opinions, and can legislate, they do not have the authority to interpret the law; that is the job of the courts. It's called separation of powers. Precedents on this subject are already on the books.
ReplyDeleteFor further reference, see these links:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html
Re http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
ReplyDeleteEtc.
I have read them and they are wrong. They rely largely on the assertion that Vattel was the source of the Natural Born definition used in the Constitution, and not the common law.
But the Constitution did not adopt many of the things that Vattel recommended, and he himself did NOT recommend that the leader of a country be a citizen, much less a citizen with two citizen parents. Vattel cites several rulers selected by countries from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that this is a bad thing.
Moreover, the idea that a person had to be both a jus soli and jus sanguninis citizen in order to be president would have been something quite novel at the time. No other country requires the combination of jus soli and jus sanguninis for anything. So, IF they had wanted to use this as a criterion for president, they would have said so.
YOu can go through hundreds of uses of Natural Born written by such leaders as Adams, Hamilton and Jay and never find one that says or infers that it means "two citizen parents."
As late as World War I, the registration for the draft asked men whether they were citizens or not, and then if they were citizens, whether they were Natural Born or Naturalized.
smstrauss,
ReplyDeleteI recommend you attempt to debate the issue with attorney Mario Apuzzo, whom I suspect has more credentials than you do. You may do so on his blog.
'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
"There are two United States Supreme Court decisions that show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In both cases, the Court decided whether the person was a "citizen" of the United States, and not whether that person was an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Additionally, it is important to note that, even though the Fourteenth Amendment was already in place, Justice Waite stated that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the United States to foreign parents is a citizen (Id. at 167-68) and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of men or women. Id. at 170. It is also critical to note that Justice Waite did not refer to the English common law when defining a "natural born citizen," for we shall see that the English common law did not consider the citizenship of the child's parents when declaring that child a "natural born subject." Rather, Justice Waite refered to the "common law" that as we shall see below has its origins in the law of nations and natural law and which became U.S. common law."
[visit the blog for the balance of the article]
Note for the record. Mr. SMRSTRAUSS will not be posting here again. He is an O-Bot whose mission is to undermine blogs questioning Obama's eligibility. One blogger had this to say about SMRSTRAUSS:
ReplyDelete"With a little bit of work, I was able to find out this O-bot was likely Obama Superdelegate from DC, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss."
http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/
I firmly believe that there is still a group of people that have not been properly considered by those who chose to take a narrow view of the SCOTUS holding in Newman.
ReplyDeleteMilitary Officers, who received their commission from de facto President Obama, I think, would be viable plaintiffs to challenge the qualifications of the person from whom they received their commission. Their interest in the office is direct, and it is peculiar. It is definately an interest different than any taxpayer or citizen.
The ideal officer plaintiff whould be one that does not have deployment orders. This would avoid any claims that it was filed to avoid deployment.
A narow interpretation of Newman has led many to believe that a civil servant is held in higher esteem than a military officer. I doubt any U.S. Court would make such a claim.
Whistleblower,
ReplyDeleteNo one I know, especially Donofrio, believes a civil servant is held in higher esteem than a military officer. He simply discovered in the law that the courts left the barn door open for suits from civil servants who have been harmed.
In March 2009, Donofrio argued:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/donofrio-damage-control/
". . . in late January of this year, I published a blog concerning “standing” to challenge Presidential eligibility wherein I suggested active military might hypothetically have standing as citizens but without breaking orders as soldiers. Immediately after publishing this hypothetical discussion, I received messages from military personnel requesting I remove the blog. They forwarded various statutory authority such as applicable provisions of the UCMJ which convinced me that our active military should not be involved in the eligibility issue at all. I subsequently removed the blog post and have continued to strongly discourage active military participation in any eligibility law suits. Recently, I have received messages from various active military asking my opinion, and I have consistently told them to refrain from joining any of these law suits."
However, Donofrio did say on his blog before it went down that a large group of retired military officers would make an apporpriate group of plaintiffs to be represented as "third persons".
My concern with third person standing is that the plaintiffs would have to be represented by Eric Holder or a U.S. Attorney, both of whom are Obama appointees!
I would prefer to see an "interested person" file so that an outside attorney could step up to the plate to truly represent the relator, our military, and the American public. I have no trust whatsoever in our current AG or his employees.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteI think you missed my point. (and Leo's determination was before I had looked into those officers who received their commission from Obama)
Only NEW officers (commissioned after Obama took office) who received their commission from Obama would fall into the "interested person" category.
I say this because their commission is only valid if the issuing authority is legitimate.
The "interested person" exception provided by 3503 is meant to be limiting, but not prohibitive. The Court's holding in Newman discusses civil service employees, but is silent regarding military personell. Silence is not an exclusion, but merely an area not addressed.
The best new military officer plaintiff would be one that does not have deployment orders.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteI should have added.
Most of the claims presented by military personell were to challenge the legitimacy of an order. While challenging the legitimacy of a direct superior is one thing, challenging the originator of the order is left to the immediate subordinate. i.e. The Secretary of Defense could challenge the qualifications of the President via Quo Warranto, but an officer in the field could only challenge the legitimacy of the person who gave him or her an order.
I'm a Navy Veteran.
Whistleblower,
ReplyDeleteAn "interested person" is someone who has been actively harmed by the usurper, such as being fired, demoted, etc. As I understand Leo's arguments, a military person does not have standing based on "interested person" status.
Military personnel might have status as a "third person," but I agree with Leo and all the military personnel who wrote to him, that it could be a very serious mistake for ANY active duty personnel to file a suit.
I will never support such an idea.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteNeither the statute, nor the SCOTUS opinion in Newman requires anybody to be "harmed". The only requirement is that the plaintiff be "interested". The Court even provided us with examples of what "interested" means.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/case.html
Leo has never said that a NEW officer, who received their commission from Obama would not be considered to be an interested person. In fact, at the time Leo made his statement, the possibility that an officer who received their commission from Obama, had not been contemplated.
Is challenging the legitimacy of the President a good career move for a new officer? -NO; of course not. However, if a new officer is the only one that will have standing, and that officer believes that Obama does not meet the qualifications...it is an obligation.
Desparate times call for desparate measures.
"An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive."
The catalyst for the DC Quo Warranto statute was the Hayes vs. Tilden election of 1876. I suggest you read up on it. (No offense intended)
Whistleblower,
ReplyDeleteI base my comments on Donofrio's analysis of another case. Fortunately, I managed to print a copy of his third brief, along with all the comments, just a day before his site went down, so, in his own words, here is why Donofrio thinks an injured plaintiff has standing.
Reference: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23226941/Andrade-v-Lauer-234-US-App-DC-384
"Active military officers have openly stated that the so called Commander In Chief is an 'imposter' and a 'usurper'. These men have consented to be plaintiffs in eligibility law suits. Should this trend spread, it has the power to divide our forces and nation.
Under the holding in Andrade v. Lauer, 729 E2d 1475, 234 U.S. AppD.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 U.S. 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.
They opened the door to a floodgate of litigation by an incredibly large field of possible plaintiffs who might challenge every single action of the Obama administration on the basis that he isn't eligible."
One who is injured, is not limited to quo warranto. If it was, perhaps former-Inspector General Walpin would pursue quo warranto.
ReplyDeleteQuo Warranto does not require a demonstrated injury. It only requires an interest that is direct and peculiar to the plaintiff.
"Under the holding in Andrade v. Lauer, 729 E2d 1475, 234 U.S. AppD.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."
ReplyDeleteWhat this is saying, is that, even if the office holder does not hold the office legitimately, they will be treated as legitimate for the purpose of adjudication.
If someone committed fraud to become a police officer, and then abused their authority, it would not be dismissed because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I also read Leo's blog and considered him a citizens attorney professor. I attended the classes Leo put on his blog. Now that his blog is deleted I fear many will drop the course.
ReplyDeleteBecause I wanted some of Leo's excellent work for reference and study I preserved about 28 posts of Leo's insturuction.
To view his deleted posts go to: www.nborncitizens.wordpress.com
I also have a few of his posts on my other blog:
www.storyreportscomments.blogspot.com
As you can tell I think quo warranto can be executed in the DC court by someone like Sara Palin, Walpin etc as an interested person. I would file a quo warranto case as a third person if I could but as you know before an ordinary US citizen can do that in the name of the US, I must get the permission of the DOJ and that isn't going to happen.
jayjay,
ReplyDeleteYou were right to point out my omission, and so my comments have been amended to reflect Mario's efforts to reveal the truth about Obama's lack of eligibility.
Update:
ReplyDeleteWhy Obama is ineligible - regardless of his birthplace
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
April 1, 2010
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
Can someone explain to me why this is not being properly and legally pursued?Is their not away to get this out to the general public, and why does Fox and other networks stay away from this.Their is no doubt that the president did not meet the qualifiactions to hold office including that he lied about his hstory etc.. Why does the republican or Tea party not pursue this?Corky Bennett cwbennettjr@hotmail.com
ReplyDelete