Tuesday, June 21, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Precedent States That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President

By Leo Donofrio, Esq.
June 21, 2011

The title of this article is correct.  After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens.  Read that again.  I said precedent, not dicta.  The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent.  Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court.  On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.  I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue.  This is not a remote obscure reading.  It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.


  1. I'm a bit perplexed as to why a post such as this has appeared as it is actually old news by at least two years or more.  This was part of the Kerchner et al litigation well over two years ago and Mario Apuzzo has written extensively on the topic from about that time onward.

    It seems odd that the writer seems to believe that he's "discovered" this information.  It had certainly been submitted to SCOTUS as part of Kerchner et al but possible he never read that extensive submission.  I suppose having another lawyer repeating the same information isn't a bad idea since some folks (primarily in Congress, it seems) don't know this.  It has actually been known since efore the Kerchner case, even, but not widely disseminated.  The writer seems to pretend that "everyone" on all sides of the issue thought there was no precedent ... and THAT is simply nonsense!

  2. Dear JTX,

    This is Donofrio's response, which may surprise you.

    "ed. I direct you to Mario Apuzzo’s comments about my latest
    blog…Mario has done wonderful research and has written very important
    pieces on this issue. And Mario recognizes that what is new in my post
    is the incredible realization that the SCOTUS directly construed Article
    2 Section 1 in Minor and the Court specifically avoided construing the
    14th Amendment… therefore we have a standing precedent as to the SCOTUS
    defining the class of natural born citizens, not dicta. It’s precedent
    and it was not superseded by Wong Kim Ark because that case only
    construed the 14th Amendment, not A2S1. For such a long time, it
    appeared that Wong and Minor both construed the 14th Amendment, but that
    turns out to not be the case… not on the citizenship aspect of Minor.
    It had not been discussed previously that Minor specifically AVOIDED
    construing the 14th Amendment as to Mrs. Minor’s citizenship, and they
    instead relied upon their construction of Article 2 Section 1.
    Here is what Mario wrote yesterday after reading my article:

    “No conspiracy here. This is fact and it is from our good friend,
    Attorney Leo Donofrio. Leo has done a new analysis and has confirmed
    what ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ have known and that is Barack Obama is not eligible
    for the presidency. Leo brings up new analysis with the case Wong Kim
    Ark and the Arkeny V. Governor of the State of Indiana. Donofrio has
    been a true American Patriot and we should show him our gratitude for a
    job well done exploiting these false rumors that those cases are the
    catalyst that makes Obama a natural born citizen and that he is eligble
    to be president, I will now present Donofrio’s brilliant thorough
    analysis that proves Obama is not eligible and is usurping the office of
    the presidency. We must contact our lawmakers to make them aware of
    this and I encourage you to flood your local online newspaper forums and
    blogs with this information.”

    Here is the link
    to Mario’s comment above which appears at politicalforum.com. I was
    very humbled to read his words about my report because I consider Mario a
    peer, and I know he is one of the people who has given so much of his
    time in pursuit of the legal truth. – Leo"

  3. That APUZZO user ID in the blog (link below) cited by Leo Donofrio is NOT Attorney Mario Apuzzo.  It, whoever it is, is a faker.  Probably some Obot disinformation and misinformation operation.  See the fake Apuzzo poster at this link.  A despicable deceiver and possibly breaking the law by implying that he/she is an attorney and that he/she is Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

  4. That APUZZO user ID in the blog (link below) cited by Leo Donofrio is
    NOT Attorney Mario Apuzzo.  It, whoever it is, is a faker.  Probably
    some Obot disinformation and misinformation operation.  See the fake
    Apuzzo poster at this link.  A despicable deceiver and possibly breaking
    the law by implying that he/she is an attorney and that he/she is
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

  5. Again, that APUZZO user id is a faker.  Leo Donofrio should know better.  I suspect he does know that is not Attorney Mario Apuzzo.  For some real comments about Leo Donofrio's so called "discovery" of precedence via the Minor v Happersett supreme court case, of which Attorney Apuzzo has stated that it was such a precedent setting case, defining natural born citizenship, many times over the last two years in his blog and court filings in Kerchner v Obama, see the comment thread in Mario's blog:
    Leo Donofrio is a braggart par excellance at time. He just can't seem to simply educate people on something. He has to claim he discovered it.  That is Leo D, seeking fame and acclaim all the time and attempting to rewrite history in his image.

  6. Bloody hell!  I'm tired of this intrigue.  For the record, I attempted to post the following remark on Donofrio's blog because the link he provided timed out every time I tried it, but at this writing, my comment is still awaiting moderation. If my comment does not get added to his blog, I will have my answer.

    My comment on http://bitsy.me/25r --

    Erica Says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    June 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM

    Thanks very much for your reply, and I must say I am pleased that Apuzzo
    and you are on the same page. By the way, the link to Political Forum
    timed out several times. Is the link just swamped with visitors, or is
    the link incorrect?

    Ramjet767, your link DID work.

  7. Hello Erica,

    Yes, the mind bending games and revisionist history games people play on line on the internet is very discouraging.  Pysch-op games is something the Obots thrive on.  They enjoy deceiving people.

  8. Leo - if that is truly you, Leo ,,, you've either been punked by a Flying Monkey or you've taken to writing up your own make-believe congratulations as that "Apuzzo" poster is definitely NOT Mario Apuzzo.

    It really does, however, sound a lot like your own writing style.  Did you punk yourself??  Please don't break your own wrist kissing it so heavily.

  9. Ok, folks, listen up. Something is rotten in Denmark, so I hope together we can open this can of worms to see what's crawling inside. 

    The link which Mr. Donofrio offered up in his reply to my comment on his blog (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/#comment-18370) did not work when I initially tried to access it, but I linked to his article anyway. Eventually I was able to access the site on which Donofrio claims "Apuzzo" complimented Donofrio's research. Had I been able to link to the site before publishing Donofrio's article, I might not have published it, because the "Public Forum" site looks questionable, to my mind.  My bad, as they say.  The poseur, who calls himself Apuzzo, could be anyone, including a Donofrio acolyte, an obot, Apuzzo himself, or even Donofrio posing as Apuzzo.  Read the following comment, which I know to be from the real Apuzzo, and reach your own conclusions: 

    Puzo1 has left a new comment on your post "http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-doesnt-hawaii-senator-sam-slom.html":

    I am Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law of the State of New Jersey. I represented Commander Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    This is to let anyone who is interested to know that there is an "Apuzzo" posting comments on the internet on the Obama eligibility issue who is not me. I hope that whatever this other Apuzzo has posted is supportive of my and others' efforts rather than destructive. One can see an example of such posts at the following link which are in reference to Leo Donofrio's latest essay on Minor v. Happersett.


    Who's kidding whom here?

  10. I think you are trolling.  The mere fact that Grey made the mistake of construction in his citation of Minor in the Ark case was where everyone was hung up - thinking there was no real precedent.  Both sides had come to a stalemate on the issue because of it.

    How about if you provide a link to where Apuzzo had already disseminated Justice Grey's mistake and had pointed to the real precedence that the Minor case had set?

    I don't think Leo is trying to take credit for someone else's research - as it seems he truly believes this was unknown prior to his revelation.  I also think if it has been out there for two years he will be the first to make that fact known.

    Link please.

  11. to @d13c4b748126148e442e3a8803791582

    See this thread on Apuzzo's blog covering extensively of Minor v Happersett for the last two years as a supreme court precedence on the meaning of natural born citizen in article II.  He has written about it in his blog for over two years as well as argued that in his pleadings in the federal courts in the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit.  Leo D has a long history of rediscovering the wheel and claiming he discovered it first in his on again and off again operation of his blog which he takes down when cornered on a misstatement or problem he created for others only to come back again several months later and reopen shop and continuing to try and rewrite history in his own mind and image.

  12. I guess that one of us may be "trolling" ... but it is not me.  I see someone else has already fulfilled your request so I'll merely second what he has said.  Gtray had been known for some time to have "misspoken" and the suspicion has been that it was because he was a Chester Arthur appointee - sort of like we see now with the two Obama appointed Justices who are not recused when the should be.

  13. Thank you for the link as requested.  That's interesting and not so much all at the same time.  I would like to think that Leo D has read Apuzzo given the nature of his blog; however, I have long ago moved away from WND, Orly, and Apuzzo.  I am NOT putting these three in the same category, just stating that I have not been reading them due to one reason or another (credibility, time, etc).  

    I simply had to pick a couple 'pro' and 'con' blogs to read and Apuzzo was not one of them. I apologize for my 'toll' comment.

    And while I do not wish to speak for Leo or make excuses...have you never yourself read something over and over and it never really donned on you what you were reading until suddenly this light appeared over your head and it was like...wow, it was there all along?  Even when someone else pointed out the obvious, and your mind just wasn't working in that direction and it was lost in the periphery?  Again, not making excuses, but it truly did seem like that is the case with Leo in this situation.  He should definitely give credit where credit is due.  I can't imagine that he thought he would get away with reposting an idea that has been out there for quite some time....but who knows.

  14. And I agree with you 100% on Justice Grey where C. Arthur is concerned.  I was especially pleased with the Weiner debacle and truly felt that there might have been help in ousting his behavior when he was going after Justice Thomas to recuse himself when the two that needed to recuse themselves were, in fact, Kegan and Sotomoyor.  I was pleasantly surprised to know he did it all to himself.