Main Menu

Leo C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo C. Donofrio is a retired lawyer and professional poker player. His connection to Obama conspiracy theories is through his lawsuit, Donofrio v. Wells, which challenged the presidential election in New Jersey because the New Jersey Secretary of State (Wells)  did not personally verify the eligibility of the candidates for president on the New Jersey ballot, three of whom Donofrio believes were ineligible.

Donofrio maintains a blog site called Natural Born Citizen in which he discusses the case,  related cases and citizenship issues.

Donofrio is also a proponent of the argument that President Chester A. Arthur was not a legitimate president because his father was a British citizen when Chester was born. He accuses Arthur of intentionally misdirecting investigators to keep them from discovering his father’s naturalization status. This is discussed here in the article: “The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur“.

After the refusal of Donofrio v. Wells by the United States Supreme Court (and that of another litigant Cort Wrotnowski) Donofrio has taken on a conspiratorial view of things including explaining the Court’s decision as cowardice rather than judicial opinion.

He wrote:

you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court.  You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

66 Responses to Leo C. Donofrio

  1. avatar
    Linda December 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm #

    Leo is a Hero of America! End of story! Oh yes it is not a conspiracy that Obama is not qualified–it is a fact!

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    Linda, this web site is here to collect and catalog information about Obama conspiracy theories. Unfortunately when you say “end of story” without telling the story, there is a certain lack of information there, and when you say Obama’s “not qualified” without giving a reason, it really doesn’t move things ahead in the discussion.

  3. avatar
    Linda December 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm #

    Sorry, You are right. Assuming that you have read the four cases in the USSC all have had their stays denied—not their writs—so are these cases still pending? I feel as many others that they are and Leo has “jumped the gun” and his remarks are unfounded at this time.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm #

    Linda, in the case of Donofrio v. Wells, there is no record I can find on the docket that Donofrio ever filed the writ. He filed for a stay pending his filing of the writ, and that is all that is on the docket. The writ was denied by the full court. Same story for Wrotnowski. Berg, on the other hand, did file for a writ and his writ is scheduled for discussion on January 9.

    Leo is a lawyer, and he, better than any of us, knows when his case is denied.

    I’m don’t know exactly which cases you’re counting in the 4.

    It does get a bit tangled.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2008 at 2:39 pm #

    The picture above is the ONLY picture I could find of Leo Donofrio, who is now a professional poker player and the picture is from a tournament photo. If someone has a more dignified picture, please point me to it.

  6. avatar
    Linda December 22, 2008 at 10:01 pm #

    ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
    08A469
    WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
    The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
    to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
    The other case I was referring to is Lightfoot v Bowen No 08A524 Orly was denied the stay but not the writ. She has resubmitted but the case hasn’t been uploaded on the net as yet. All filed a Writ of cert. Very confusing! I thought that Berg’s suit was denied too, then to find out only the stay was denied. Yep that’s Leo alright—but then when I see a picture of Einstein I want to hand him a brush.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2008 at 11:01 pm #

    Linda, are you sure the writs have been filed? They aren’t on the web site (as you noted).

  8. avatar
    Linda December 22, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called “Cert Petition.”) A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
    Yes to you question I am sure.
    This is what is the confusing part.
    Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2008 at 11:41 pm #

    Linda, what’s confusing? Seems straightforward to me. Did you see “Cert. Denied” somewhere on the docket?

    Compare the initial entry in the docket for Donofrio:

    Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

    with Berg Oct 30:

    Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
    Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

    Donofrio was pending writ and disposition, but Berg we only pending disposition.

  10. avatar
    Linda December 24, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    Judicial review can only exsist after electorial congressional process. All cases to date have been denied without comment. The Supremes are strict on prodedure. read link to conference http://www.supremecourthistory.org/03_how/subs_how/03_a09.html
    No comment if case is still pending.
    Update: Cort announced today his writ is still pending—DUH—-You’ve just got to love those young guns. I hope Leo removes those “jumped the gun” remarks. Personally I think that they will grant the writ. Only time will tell.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 24, 2008 at 5:54 pm #

    This article talks about why the Supreme Court may not want to get involved.

    http://www.acandidworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/83BUL53.pdf

  12. avatar
    Linda December 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm #

    The fact that it is still pending has merit in itself. I am glad that Cort and Leo finally realized that it is pending. Whether the Supreme Court wants to get involved or not is a mute point not worthy of discussion and derogatory. Here’s the link that Cort mentioned that it is pending http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/from-leo-wrotnowski-certiorari-filed.html

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 25, 2008 at 9:51 am #

    I fixed the link.

    How come none of these “Dr.” people have dissertations on file?

  14. avatar
    Hitandrun December 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Linda writes:

    >Judicial review can only exsist after electorial congressional process.<

    If we grant the legitimacy of judicial review (itself an invention of the courts), then courts can use the appropriate cases before them to intervene at any step of the process to insure the Constitution is not being violated, whether by state or Federal authorities. Judges of course may or may not choose to wait until the ‘objection’ procedure outlined in US Scripture is completed.

    Hitandrun

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm #

    Hitandrun,

    For more on judicial review in the case of a presidential campaign, I recommend Natural Born’ in the USA: The striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity of the Constitution’s presidential qualifications clause and why we need need to fix it starting around page 24.

    Once serious candidates emerge, even early in a primary race, the ripeness doctrine is unlikely to bar resolution of a bona fide challenge to a candidate’s constitutional eligibility to serve as President for several reasons. First, the issue would be concrete, and the case would not require development of the kind of record critical to most judicial decisions. The only essential facts would be the candidate’s birthplace and the citizenship of her parents. The heart of the matter would not involve the interplay of legal principles with complex facts, but interpretation of extensive legal and historical research concerning Article II and the intentions of the Framers in light of relevant principles of constitutional interpretation…

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    Regarding judicial review and standing. The people who have standing have not appealed to the courts. John McCain is a perfect individual with standing. Why didn’t he sue? He would have looked like a fool when he inevitably lost. Hilary Clinton could have sued as well. Some years back the State of Hawaii refused to put a person on the ballot who was 33 years old. Any state attorney general/secretary of state could have done that this time, or requested documentation. All 50 of them did not. Why, because of some grand conspiracy theory? More eyes than you imagine have already reviewed this stuff and found it wanting.

  17. avatar
    George Orwell III December 27, 2008 at 7:06 pm #

    How come none of these “Dr.” people have dissertations on file?

    I don’t know about the Doctor thing but it appears Orly got her degree by telecourses via Taft Law School in July 2002

    http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/honoredgrads.htm

  18. avatar
    bogus info December 27, 2008 at 8:07 pm #

    Both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases have been denied. Nothing is pending. Confirmed by USSC.

  19. avatar
    Hitandrun January 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Dr.Conspiracy writes:

    >Regarding judicial review and standing. The people who have standing have not appealed to the courts.John McCain is a perfect individual with standing. Why didn’t he sue?He [McCain] would have looked like a fool when he inevitably lost. Hilary Clinton could have sued as well. Some years back the State of Hawaii refused to put a person on the ballot who was 33 years old. Any state attorney general/secretary of state could have done that this time, or requested documentation. All 50 of them did not. Why, [...]<

    Won’t you agree, the reason, in most cases, is simply inertia and incompetence?

    Hitandrun

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    It is a bit of an embarrassment that no one has (or at least acknowledges) the statutory responsibility to check off the box next “Eligible” on candidates for President. We have had candidates (with no chance) on ballots that were not eligible.

    That said, the current lesse faire attitude has worked all right for 200 years. (I think Arthur and Curtis are OK.) And frankly, if there were a statutory requirement to check eligibility, Barack Obama would have shown up with his genuine Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth which is prima facie evidence of his age and place of birth, and the box would have been checked by any reasonable and conscientious examiner.

    The folks who say “Obama must not be president” would still not be satisfied, although with a different and perhaps smaller set of reasons that probably would include attacks on whoever checked the eligibility.

  21. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    So what you’re saying is that the Constitution should now be changed because you want Obama, but in 2000, it was ok to scream from hills that John McCain wasn’t natural born?

    It’s come to my attention that John McCain’s long form BC was only made public in 2008. It proves all along that he wasn’t natural born as suspected.

    Rules aside, you try going over to one of these other countries and declaring that while your parents were American, you were born there and have the right to be their president and see what they tell you.

    The Constitution is the single most document that protects the American people, yet time and time again, the only thing you see is people like this dedicating their lives to try to change it in the name of being “politically correct”.

    Attempting to paint everyone who doesn’t agree with your double-standard thinking as “conspiracists” will only label you as having a motive to smear them.

    If these representatives wanted the standard changed for Obama, they should have amended the Constitution, not decided it didn’t matter and went ahead anyway to do as they pleased without following the recourse they had in the law.

    I think it’s shameful that you’ll misinform people as to how these events occurred in this election and turn a blind eye to what the framers did have to say regarding NBC.

    I don’t think you’re ignorant to what really happened either. I just think you have an agenda. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but it’s quite another to spread disinformation and label people derrogatively because you don’t like their feelings toward the Constitution.

    http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/

  22. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 8:59 am #

    FYI, it is the SOS job to verify the eligibility of the candidates. This was the contention of Donofrio v. Wells.

    The precedent was set when Roger Calero was thrown from the ballot in 5 states by the SOS’s authority to remove him. That proves their authority since he was indeed REMOVED and they exercised it. Had the SOS in those states not had that authority, he would have been removed by someone else, but that was not the case.

    The double-standard is in applying it to Roger Calero in 5 other states and not applying the same standard to Calero in others, as well as John McCain and Barack Obama.

    If you read Donofrio v. Wells in the lower court, you would see that was one of the points of his contention.

    You can’t do that. You can’t say, “I’m the SOS and sorry Roger, you’re not eligible to run for POTUS.” and throw him from the ballot because he’s not a NBC and then turn around when you’re sued and claim, “It’s not my responsibility to verify the candidates.” Sorry SOS. You have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and that IS your job. In fact, you’ve proven it with Roger Calero.

  23. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    That’s nothing but an insufficient opinion by a law student.

    If you want the law, try Professor Gabriel J. Chin who actually knows what it says. He ripped Duggin to shreds and he was only confronting McCain’s ineligibility.

    Bottom line, you can’t change the Constitution with an opinion. Much like they never changed it with S.R. 511 either.

  24. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 9:31 am #

    There is nothing “wanting” about the Constitution, Dr. Conspiracy. It says what it says!

    Just because you can point to corrupt politicians who use the law to comport with their own agendas, doesn’t make it the actual law. You’re swimming in the same muddy waters McCaskill tried to pull in the Senate.

    And by the way, if these candidates were so eligible as you contend, there would have be NO REASON for McCaskill, McCain, Clinton and Obama to be attempting to LEGISLATE these candidates eligibility in the Senate back in February and April, 2008. But they did.

    Simply put, there would be NO REASON whatsoever to be going through all that trouble if these people were eligible. In fact, they weren’t eligible and that’s the problem with this election. They broke the law, period.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 10:21 am #

    Law review articles aren’t wrong because they are written (and edited) by students, and there are no shortage of cranks who are professors. They are right or wrong by the quality of their arguments. Are you prepared to discuss the law review article, or would you like to read it first? I thought it was brilliant.

    It would be impossible for me to take on every article on the Internet I disagree with (having only a human life span), so I make it a policy not to accept statements like yours that offer no argument but tell me to go fight a third party, who is not going to hold up their end in a debate. If you can convince that professor to come to the blog here to discuss his article, then I’d be happy to oblige.

    The question for McCain is very different than the question for Obama because Obama’s natural born citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution itself, and reinforced by the 14th amendment, while McCain’s is supported by statute. Nevertheless, I believe both would easily prevail, should a court ever rule on the question of whether they were eligible to be president.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    I did not say the Constitution was “wanting”, I said that the legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility were “wanting”. And Philip J. Berg is a notorious conspiracy theorist, not just about Obama.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    Tell it to the judge.

    But really, who appears on the ballot is determined by state law. The courts in New Jersey accepted Well’s argument (by saying in their opinion that Donofrio was unlikely to prevail) that in New Jersey, it was not the SOS responsibility to determine candidate eligibility. In Hawaii, by contrast, the Hawaii Supreme Court supported the Hawaiian SOS a few decades ago when they dropped a clearly ineligible candidate from the ballot (in this case too young).

    Read the New Jersey AG response to Donofrio for his interpretation of what is and is not the Secretary of State’s responsibility. [Have you read that, by the way?]

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    That your comments appear here (on the Donofrio bio) suggests that you haven’t looked into the serious articles on natural born citizen that are on the blog. I think you would do well to read some of the material here before you rush to judgment.

    The zapem blog article in your comment is just fluff. It’s an appeal to popular prejudice, trotting out quotes from people who lost their citizen debates when they were made.

    Those folks who raise the constitution high are the same people who say that we should decide what the constitution means based the opinions of untrained bloggers and historical losers, and are totally unwilling to trust those constitutional institutions charged with enforcing and interpreting the law.

    If you want to see a serious analysis, look at any number of well-reasoned and fact-filled articles on this blog such as:

    Judge and Jury: Arguments on natural born citizen
    Natural Born Citizen for Dummies
    Natural Born Citizen
    Two Kinds of Citizen (new)
    The “Natural Born Citizenship” Clause (updated)

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    I don’t who know you are talking to. This blog has always maintained the John McCain is a natural born citizen. A generalized rant against straw men is not going to advance the discussion.

    The only reason I think a constitutional amendment might be in order is to codify what the courts would decide based on existing law and precedent.

  30. avatar
    bogus info January 15, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Dr. C.,

    I’m going to change your name to Dr. Conspiracy-one cool cat.(Dr. C.O.C.C.)

  31. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    You thought Duggin was brilliant merely because she agreed with your opinion. However, your opinion, and hers for that matter, aren’t a matter of law.

    Chin is the authority because he took the time to refresh the minds of those who forget what the laws actually state. What Duggin does is the same thing that Tribe and Olson tried to do with McCain. They tried to make IMPLICATIONS at what the law might have meant. That’s a great legal tactic, but it’s not factual as Chin pointed out.

    Duggin, Tribe and Olson were trying to make arguments based on things that aren’t written in the law as it stands.

    Again, if you want to change the Constitution, there’s a remedy for that. It’s called Article V, not a law review. Show me where a law review is precedent for changing what is? There is none.

  32. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    Obama is not a natural born citizen via his birth by a foreign father who was never a citizen of the U.S. Plain and simple.

    The 14th Amendment wasn’t revised to specifically take out the words “natural born citizen” and revise it with “citizen” for no reason.

    The reason was clear. Citizen is NOT the same as natural born citizen. Your 14th Amendment example is in error. Go back and read it.

  33. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    It’s not wanting and it’s not up to you to decide what the Constitution meant. If it’s up to anyone, it’s up to the SCOTUS or the congress to enforce an amendment to the Constitution, which they never succeeded in doing.

    What they did instead, was parade S.R. 511 around as if it were a law and it’s nothing more than a non-binding conversation that the Senate had.

    In fact by even holding those hearings back in February and April of LAST YEAR, they by default, have admitted that Obama and McCain were never eligible to run for POTUS. Why did they need to try to legislate them into being eligible if they were? Answer that.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Michelle, if Duggin isn’t a matter of law, then how is it that Chin IS a matter of law? And if I think Duggin is brilliant mere because she agreed with me, how is it not that Chin is authority because he agrees with you. This is double standard rampant!

    Of course Chin agrees with me, not you on Obama.

    You haven’t said anything whatever based on law or reason to suggest that your notion of natural born citizenship is anything but a fringe view.

  35. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    This section isn’t about Berg. It’s about Donofrio’s case, which has nothing to do with Berg’s case. Berg relies on a birth certificate.

    Donofrio relies on the Constitution. If you read the Constitution and study where the meaning of NBC comes into it, you’d know that Obama was definitely not eligible.

    Donofrio’s case isn’t about Obama. It’s about the Constitution. His suit was brought well before the election and it contended that THREE, not one, ineligible candidates were on those ballots.

    I already said I’m not a fan of the Berg case, so I don’t know why you’re relying on it here. This is akin to what Pete Williams tried to do in his MSNBC article and we ripped that to shreads because he deserved it and had it coming. He also blocked any comments that told the truth about the difference between the two cases.

  36. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Is that all you can answer? “Tell it to the judge”?

    You obviously can’t answer why 5 other Secretaries of State bumped Calero off their ballots for being ineligible to run for POTUS, but you have no explanation as why they seemed to have that authority.

    It’s because that’s their duty under the law. To verify the eligibility of the candidates that are running. What do you think a SOS does? They verfiy the ballots!

    Show me where that’s “not their job”? Show me exactly, instead of talking about it, that’s it NOT their job.

    I’ve shown that 5 other states have done exactly that, by their Secretary of State, so obviously they have that authority! Your’e wrong!

  37. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    The Zapem blog is nothing but facts of what happened, you idiot. This is nothing but fluff. You have presented NO FACTS whatsoever. What have you done? All I see you doing is running around countering facts with your opinion and calling what others have researched as “fluff”.

    You’re a pot calling the kettle black.

    When you can do some bonafide research, then attack someone, until then, all you’re doing is proving you can talk in a chatroom, armed with zero evidence.

  38. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    And a Professor of a law university says you’re wrong about John McCain.

    Let’s see, who to believe here?

    A Professor with a long list of credentials and education under his belt who can cite the law to back up his arguments or you, who has done none of that?

    Not a hard choice.

    Oh and that “bogus info” alt of yours is really transparent. You really shouldn’t have a pseudo-alt being that much of a drooling fan to make it appear as if someone loves you. That’s really odd behavior.

  39. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    Duggin is a legal argument for why something SHOULD be changed, same as Tribe and Olson’s argument. It’s not based in factual law, it’s based in IMPLIED law. – not the same thing at all. Any lawyer or Judge knows this. It’s a tactic, nothing more.

    Chin relies ON THE LAW; therein lies your difference. He doesn’t make implications. He doesn’t have to! He knows the law and doesn’t need to squirm around it. That’s why he is more credible than they are.

    In a court of law, Chin would win hands down, because his citations exist as a matter of fact and Duggins don’t. Duggins citations are more of the same – implications saying, “Well it could be construed to mean this and not that”. A legal tactic – nothing more, based on her opinion.

  40. avatar
    Michelle January 15, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9258498/Why-Sen-John-McCain-Cannot-Be-President

    Or you could have just looked it up? If you had done half the research you copied into this blog, you would have known about Chin. In fact, you should probably go study all the articles on that Scribd listing, because all you’ve done here is ridicule the references you were given, calling them “fluff” when they were in fact, FACTUAL with evidence.

    You haven’t given any evidence here. You’ve done nothing but copy cases and shoved them all into a blog and made fun of them for no good reason.

    Show me exactly what YOU have researched? I’ve written articles I have researched and you call it “fluff” and then wonder why people dont’ find you credible.

  41. avatar
    bogus info January 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    Michelle AKA David,

    I am bogus info. I am NOT a pseudo-alt for Dr. C. I am very much a real person and have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. C., except I happen to agree with Dr. C on the NBC issue. The invitation here was not to be rude and attack Dr. C., but to rather discuss the issue of NBC. If you are trying to goad Dr. C. into “banning” you from this blog so you can go back and say, “see they ban people too when they don’t agree with their opinions”, won’t work. The gig is up–you are busted.

    Dr. C. and I are two entirely different people. I am a female and I’m pretty sure Dr. C is male.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Your assertions without any supporting facts are getting tiresome. If you have a legal point to discuss, go ahead.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    If I’m not male, please don’t tell my wife.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    I looked Chin up. Why are we having this silly conversation? Chin said:

    The Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . . shall be eligible to the office of President.”1 A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen.2

    Those born in the United States are natural born citizens.9

    Obama was a citizen at birth when he was born in Hawaii. I have thousands of words on this blog saying the same thing. And the law review article which says it has always been understood that persons born in the United States are natural born citizens, is confirmed by Chin.

    Thanks for yet another citation I can give in support of Obama’s eligibility. I’ll let him fight it out on McCain with someone else.

    You really stepped into that one. You really gotta read your own sources.

  45. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    The belief that a “Natural Born” US citizen is one that was born by two US citizen parents is not one supported by US Law or Supreme Court rulings on US citizenship.

    US Citizenship is based on Jus Soli, (place of birth) for citizens born on US soil. (for citizens born of US citizens overseas, Jus Sanguinis applies). There is no “third tier” of citizenship, one is either a US citizen by birth, (and therefore qualified to be President), or a US citizen by naturalization, (and unable to be President).

  46. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    Dr. Taitz is a Doctor due to being a Dentist, (DDS). She also has a JD from an unaccredited on-line law school. (California is the only state allowing self-study and on-line law school grads to take the Bar exam.

    The funny thing about that link is it shows how many of the “Attorney Track” students at that school passed the Bar….

  47. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    He was removed because he was born outside the United States, and was not a US citizen under any standards. Therefore, unable to run.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    I believe it has some kind of accreditation. Her skills as an attorney are best assessed by the quality of her work.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    Donofrio doesn’t rely on the constitution. He relies on de Vattel and misquotations of “founders”. Constitutionally his position is bankrupt as any competent legal scholar (e.g. Gabriel J. Chin at the University of Arizona) would tell you.

    Donofrio is, however, a conspiracy theorist. He didn’t start out that way, but when he started attributing Supreme Court decisions to hidden motives, then he joined the conspiracy theorists.

  50. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 15, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    William Howard Taft University can’t be accredited by the American Bar Association due to it being on-line. It does hold Distance Education and Training Council accreditation, but students in their law school programme have to pass the California First-Year Law Students’ Examination in order to get credit for their law studies and qualify to sit the bar.

    When I said “unaccredited”, I was talking about the law school. I should have made that clearer.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    This is not the McCain Conspiracy Theories blog. Chin agrees with my position on Obama. I don’t have the level of expertise on McCain as I do on Obama, but I would point out that the Immigration Act of 1790 did say that the child of two US citizens, no matter where born, is a natural born citizen. That law is no longer in force, but I think the concept is still in the current law. [I learned that during my research.]

    Chin and de Vattel are at opposite points one saying jurisdiction born without citizen parents is naturalized and the other saying citizen parent born without jurisdiction is naturalized.

    THIS is why our clever law student suggests a constitutional amendment to clear it up.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    I have repeatedly pointed you to the research articles here. Calling me an “idiot” will not improve your credibility.

    More accurately, I should have said “the zapem blog article you linked to is fluff”.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    Do you have a citation for your comment that “natural born” was removed from the 14th amendment during debate? I would like to know more.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    Michelle,

    You have made an assertion “it’s their duty under the law”. But you haven’t referenced any law. Please cite the law.

  55. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 15, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    Michelle,
    Please provide some proof of your assertion that “5 SOS bumped Calero off their ballots” as I understand otherwise.

    My understanding is that the Socialist Workers Party assessed state election laws and determined that Calero was prohibited from being on the ballot in some states. In thoes states, Calero ran a surrogate (who was a US citizen by birth) in his place.

    I have been able to find NO reports or evidence that ANY SOS challenged Calero’s appearance on any ballot.

    It seems Calero was simply aware of the laws and ran a surrogate where he thought he would not qualify.

    Please get your facts straight before arguing on this site, we actually value research here.

  56. avatar
    Michelle February 5, 2009 at 4:54 am #

    I’ve read the notes by James Madison and the debates thereafter. It’s amazing how you point to an article that leaves half of the debates out that prove what the framers meant and then ridiculously call on the Naturalization Act of 1790 without even mentioning the revision that put the words “natural born citizen” back in and rejected the language used in the original which merely stated “citizen”.

    When you can find something unbiased to your cause, call me.

    I especially think you’re warped thinking is totally biased in light of the fact that if you hated Bush so badly, you’re sitting here sticking up for an adminstration that’s doing 10x worse with anti-free-market and unconstitutional bailouts/stimulus/recovery packages. It’s doing nothing but bankrupt this country and you know it. Now we see the banks gobbling up the money and using it to solicit foreign employees to work here instead of paying Americans for the job.

    When you guys come back to reality, which I doubt you will because you’re so clouded in romantic fantasies over the glitz of this horrible election, maybe you’ll see what’s really good for America and what isn’t.

    And while you’re at it, if you could pull your heads out of the sand, you may be able to see that there’s something seriously wrong with a man who spends in excess of $800,000.00 because he refuses to show where the hell he came from and points to a laughable internet URL as his proof.

  57. avatar
    Michelle February 5, 2009 at 5:05 am #

    Chin doesn’t agree with your position. Chin quotes Duggin and says, “A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen.” He puts the footnote (2) after the quote. Then you go to the footnote and you see Duggin’s legal OPINION about how UNFAIR the natural born citizen clause is!

    Duggin is complaining about the clause in the Constitution. Duggin hates it. Duggin would be all for foreign influence in this country, especially as president if she had her way. I totally disagree that was the framer’s intent and I can prove it, know why? Because I DID read the convention notes and you didn’t.

    Duggin is 100% against the framer’s intent and she’d lose if the Supreme Court of the United States had to uphold the framer’s intent.

    Oh and btw, don’t act like it such an anomoly that the SCOTUS is loathe to touch the issue. They’ve been doing just that for the last 100 or so years. This is nothing new if you did your homework.

  58. avatar
    Michelle February 5, 2009 at 5:22 am #

    The 14th Amendment doesn’t confer natural born citizenship status, it confers CITIZEN status only.

    It was a clever ploy that the Senators are using to respond to every letter they’re getting from the general public, but it’s still a lie. Citizenship doesn’t make you a natural born citizen. John Bingham did define natural born citizenship as requiring TWO parents who were American citizens, not one, in order to be POTUS.

    The 14th Amendment argument doesn’t go to the POTUS requirement, but nice try.

    You may think you’re going to amend the Constitution to clear this up, but I guarantee you, in a world where foreign America-haters just blew up our major world trade center, I highly doubt you’re going to find too many Americans willing to give up the presidency to just anyone who walks in the door. In fact, I think it’ll be worse now than it was when the framers were trying to decide how to give emigrants equal status and build a country. We have a country now. We just keep throwing our business and employment overseas and that started with Carter and only got worse with Clinton.

    I don’t where you guys come off acting like this is good for the country. All you’re doing is showing us how much you favor outsiders instead of your own who deserve to be treated better.

    And while I’m at it, if Obama was so interested in America first, he wouldn’t be calling Kenyans his “brothers and sisters” and trying to make Americans feel like they had something to be ashamed about. Then while you’re thinking of how to refute that logic, explain how Americans paying for contraceptives and abortions to foreign countries stimulates the economy. I’d really like to know. That man has no priorities for this country. He’s not stopping the war. He only detoured our forces to Afghanistan and now wants more.

    That and that fact that a national civil service in this country, policing Americans, is completely unconstitutional, not to mention forcing them to go do the grunt work 3rd world countries refuse to do for themselves. Look at his own father’s homeland. They are dying from famines from lack of water, which is right beneath their feet. All they have to do is dig, but they refuse to do that. They expect everyone else to be their “slaves” and Obama promises to give them slaves – you.

    Please feel free to sign up now. He’s got a nice little webpage you can “offer your services” to while he steals what’s left of your bank accounts.

  59. avatar
    Michelle February 5, 2009 at 5:42 am #

    Clever law students may be sharpening their “how to be a good bs’ing attorney” skills with this issue, but they’re never going to be able to get around the fact that Obama was born with dual-loyalties. His father was Kenyan, under British rule. British law was well discussed by the first congress. They knew they’d have a problem with people who were subject to the King; hence the wording “natural born”. It means you can’t have anything unnatural about your loyalties at the time of your birth. If you were subject to British common law, you weren’t eligible to be POTUS, it’s that simple. Those laws were never changed. They may seem ambiguous to you and legal scholars who want to hide that history, but the history is there.

    Obama can’t be president because his father was never an American and the constitution was never amended to include an unnatural condition at birth, which Obama has.

    The congress can try to play games all they like with S.R. 511, but it’s moot. It proves they were playing games. They said McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and it turns out he wasn’t even born there. That even further proves that what’s on a short-form BC is contradictory to what is found on the actual long-form BC, which Obama hasn’t even shown. And the audacity of it is, he feels he doesn’t have to show it to anyone. No one knows what’s even in that vault and no one has said it confirms his place of birth as Hawaii.

    You would think that someone who ran around in a campaign and screamed about the lack of transparency would be the first be transparent. Instead, he’s only shown that nothing he claims to stand for applies to him. And if you don’t find something wrong with that, you should take your partisan blinders off and start looking.

    If you don’t care, then you’re really not a patriot with this country’s interest in mind and if that’s so, I really have no use for you. It’s one thing to think you need educating. It’s another to be arguing with someone who is a communist.

    You’re really starting to make me wonder because you’re covering up for things no one would be doing if they were looking for the truth.

  60. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 6:04 am #

    Michelle,
    “spends in excess of $800,000.00″

    Please provide your source for the above information. I have yet seen anyone provide any evidence of this statement but you keep repeating this false information.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Michelle, I don’t see your argument. You call my reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 ridiculous without saying why it is ridiculous, and then mention a “revision” without saying what revision and what document. You say “put the words back in”, but no law subsequent to the 1790 act has such words. Your paragraph is a hopeless muddle. If you would try to make an argument without muddying it up with ridicule you might make more sense.

    As for the rest, this web site is about Obama Conspiracy Theories, not politics. If you want to discuss politics somewhere else. Thanks for sharing the $800,000 made up number. I’ve documented other made up numbers from $300,000 to $2.1 Million.

  62. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    I guess Michelle could subpoena President Obama’s legal fees/banks statements. After all, they have subpoened everything else they could think of. Why not those too. And while your at it, you might want to get his dental records and those of his wife and children too.

    Michelle, how much has Donofrio, Pidgeon, Taitz, Berg etc., etc spent in legal fees? How much have you donated to this cause? Have you ever had an accounting from who you have donated to, if you have donated, on how your donations were spent? Does donations to a pro bono lawsuit even require the attorney to provide/disclose any type of accounting to those who donate?

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    First of all, anyone wanting to read Chin’s article will find it here.

    Chin clearly equates “citizen at birth” with “natural born citizen”.

    Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizen”…

    This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen

    The Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . . shall be eligible to the office of President.”1 A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen.2 The presumptive 2008 Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a United States citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship when he was born.3 Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the Office of President….

    The second category includes naturalization of individual adults or children already born, collective naturalization of groups, such as residents of territory acquired by the United States, and naturalization at birth of certain classes of children born abroad to citizens. Those born in the United States are natural born citizens

    But again, to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at birth….

    This essay contends that the Tribe-Olson Opinion is not correct under current law; Senator McCain was not a natural born citizen because he was not a citizen at birth…

    The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive;74 there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers v. Bellei, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. The Court explained that Congress had no power to remove “Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence” citizenship, but the citizenship clause “obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    Since “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth” mean the same thing, the 14th amendment does confer natural born citizenship.

    If Americans don’t like a candidate, they don’t have to vote for them. A Constitutional amendment is not required. What you are arguing for is a reinterpretation of the Constitution to match your choice for President and the disenfranchisement of those who disagree with you.

    It won’t work.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    You can cite no law that supports that assertion about dual loyalties. Its’ not in the Constitution. Sorry.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 9:35 am #

    Michelle said:

    Clever law students may be sharpening their “how to be a good bs’ing attorney” skills with this issue, but they’re never going to be able to get around the fact that Obama was born with dual-loyalties. His father was Kenyan, under British rule. British law was well discussed by the first congress. They knew they’d have a problem with people who were subject to the King; hence the wording “natural born”. It means you can’t have anything unnatural about your loyalties at the time of your birth. If you were subject to British common law, you weren’t eligible to be POTUS, it’s that simple. Those laws were never changed. They may seem ambiguous to you and legal scholars who want to hide that history, but the history is there.

    This is a hopeless muddle. What does “British law was well discussed by the first congress” mean? Do you mean the constitutional convention or the first congress? Which discussion? Documented where? The notes of debate from the constitutional convention contain not one word about the qualifications for president. All we have is John Jay’s letter that says the commander in chief should not be a “foreigner”. All of your language about “unnatural condition” and so-called “dual loyalties” is simply not in the law, the constitution or the contemporary debate — it is only an artifact of your bias.