Main Menu

Donofrio files 209-page amicus brief in Georgia

Holy deforestation, Batman!

Just so you know, carbon credits are purchased to offset the electric power used to host this web site, so no trees are being harmed when I embed Donofrio’s 209-page amicus brief in the case of Farrar v. Obama (and others) below.

Donofrio argues that because Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen, nor someone who intended to stay in the United States, President Obama does not meet the definition of “natural born citizen” used in the Constitution.

I don’t know whether Judge Malihi or I will ever read the whole paper. I see right off the bat that Donofrio isn’t being honest in his recitation of the law, saying:

the Court [in Minor v. Happersett] identified, as natural-born citizens, only those who are born in the United States of citizen parents.

What is false is the placement of the word “only.” A more honest way to state it is: “the Court only identified, as natural-born citizens, those who are born in the United States of citizen parents.” The court explicitly stated that it wasn’t going to decide the status of the children of aliens. Donofrio says this case “defined” natural born citizen; associate Professor Joseph Hylton of Marquette University Law School wrote:

To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.

Donofrio then denies a long history of Supreme Court decisions that rely on English Common law for the definition of terms in the Constitution and particular the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark where the definition of “natural born citizen” is derived from the English “natural born subject.” Donofrio writes:

Additionally, the English common law term, “natural-born subject”, being a uniquely spiritual designation, was only granted to members of the Christian faith, and cannot govern the definition of “natural born Citizen”, because such a construction would be repugnant to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

hand_operated_sirenAt this point, my “crank alarm” (right) went off, and I suspect that Judge Malihi will have a similar reaction. From US v. Wong (citing Calvin’s case from English law):

[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

”Subject”and “citizen” are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term “citizen” seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, “subjects,” for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

Whether this tome increases Donofrio’s stature within the birther community is yet to be seen but it’s impact on the case in Georgia is doubtful.

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Amicus Brief From Attorney Donofrio, Georgia Ballot Challenge – 1/23…

, , ,

82 Responses to Donofrio files 209-page amicus brief in Georgia

  1. avatar
    ASK Esq January 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Gives new meaning to the word “brief.”

  2. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 24, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    I like how they dismiss Ann Dunham in all this. After all, she did birth the child and is an American citizen, but I guess birthers think women are second class citizens.

    There are a lot of women raising children on there own. It can be tough to find the fathers.
    Most likely, they don’t want to be found or are deceased.

    Question:
    If an American woman gives birth to a child with a foreign father on American soil, why does she give up the right to have her child be a NBC? Is it a form she fills out relinquishing NBC status? Show me where that is stipulated. It sounds anti-american to take that away from her.

  3. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    If “ludicrous brief” isn’t an actual legal term… it should be.

  4. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    I don’t think this stuff was meant for Judge Malihi.

    On his website, he says that in appeals all the briefs are attached to the appeal. He expects that eventually the Georgia defeat will be heard in the Supreme Court. That’s his ultimate audience. This is essentially the same strategy he employed in the Chrysler case (fail all the way to the Supreme Court).

    We all know how that worked out.

  5. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: It sounds anti-american to take that away from her.

    The whole “2 citizen parent” thing is anti-American. Imagine what the founding fathers would say to Donofrio, after they worked so hard to make sure that in America your potential wasn’t limited by not being born into the right family.

  6. avatar
    Reality Check January 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    I think Birthers argue that according to the laws in effect in 1961 Ann Dunham could not have conferred citizenship to a child based on her US citizenship alone. Originally, they were saying that because the only thing they cared about was Obama’s birth place. Leo had not pulled the two citizen parent theory out of his deep dark place yet. The Birthers have to misread de Vattel to support the idea that both parents have to be citizens. The infamous later English translation says children [pl] of citizens [pl]. This certainly does not exclude a child of a parent citizen any more than a sign at a public place that says “children must be accompanied by parents” would require both parents to be present.

    Patrick Colliano made an interesting point on RC Radio that even if Obama were not born in Hawaii he would be a natural born citizen based on current laws for citizenship of children born to one citizen parent. He argues that even though the law is not specifically retroactive the Supreme Court has ruled that such cases are decided by the law in force at the time the question is brought unless there is specific language prohibiting retroactive application. Patrick is writing a book that will include this explanation. So in effect he is saying that even if President Obama were born in another country he would be a retroactive natural born citizen. I think i just heard so heads explode on that thought.

  7. avatar
    Judge Mental January 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    gorefan: I don’t think this stuff was meant for Judge Malihi. On his website, he says that in appeals all the briefs are attached to the appeal. He expects that eventually the Georgia defeat will be heard in the Supreme Court. That’s his ultimate audience. This is essentially the same strategy he employed in the Chrysler case (fail all the way to the Supreme Court). We all know how that worked out.

    If I understand correctly what the real lawyers have said on various occasions this amicus brief will probably be filed waste paper basket.

    Apparently there is no provision in the rules and procedures for any amicus brief to be accepted by the office of administrative hearings and thus it cannot ever form part of the record of this hearing,. If that is correct it wouldn’t automatically be seen by any higher court which becomes involved in this case later,

    However there is nothing to stop unless Leo re-submitting it himself to any higher court which does become involved at the appropriate time.

    Just as an aside to this, it’s worth remembering that any appeal (by either side) will be an appeal to the SoS not an appeal to this particular administrative ‘court’.

  8. avatar
    Bernard January 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 US (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 dealt with the issue of women voting. The court’s only comment about citizenship was that someone born here to parents who were already US citizens was undoubtedly a citizen ….. and since that was the fact situation with Minor, there was no need for the Court to think about any other situation for acquiring citizenship. The Court did NOT SAY that was the only way for someone to be a natural born citizen.

    As a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court directly addressed that question 23 years later, in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 US 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, when it held that a child born here to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming citizens) was a natural born citizen of the US. In so doing, the Court cited the NY decision in Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4808, which held that a baby born here to two British tourists who shortly thereafter took the baby back with them to Britain and never returned to the US, was a natural born citizen of the US (the NY court even quoted the “natural born citizen” provision about the Presidency from the Constitution). That case was significant because, as Taitz points out, Papa Obama was then a subject of the British Empire. The Lynch case has also been cited in several law textbooks on citizenship, including some published by the US govt. And then there was Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President (1881-1885), born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.

    The principle of birthright citizenship has been so deeply and consistently part of US citizenship law that, in recent years, some law reviews have carried articles suggesting that this law be expressly changed by Congress to prevent Mexicans from having “anchor babies”. But that hasn’t happened yet and it wouldn’t have a retroactive effect on Pres. Obama (or Pres. Arthur).

  9. avatar
    J. Potter January 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    You gotta give’em credit, they do put in so much effort into the crackpottery.

    That’s a snazzy looking siren Doc! I’m tempted to pick one up …. except they look pretty pricey $120 for plastic? What? πŸ™

  10. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Hypothetical question:

    If Jane had a child in Utah for example, and from the outlook the father was Japanese. The problem was she met him at a party and it was just an impulse of lust (stuff happens) and never sees him again. We don’t know if the father is from Japan or from Los Angeles, CA.

    By birther standards, how is NBC determined?

    Should DNA be taken from the children of single mothers in case the father’s DNA is in a database?

  11. avatar
    Wile January 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    J. Potter:
    You gotta give’em credit, they do put in so much effort into the crackpottery.

    That’s a snazzy looking siren Doc! I’m tempted to pick one up …. except they look pretty pricey $120 for plastic? What?

    For a few bits more, you can go old skool.

  12. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Judge Mental: If I understand correctly what the real lawyers have said on various occasions this amicus brief will probably be filed waste paper basket.

    That may be true, I do know that there are several other amicus briefs that have been filed. Although being filed and being made part of the record may be two very different things.

  13. avatar
    Judge Mental January 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    gorefan: That may be true, I do know that there are several other amicus briefs that have been filed. Although being filed and being made part of the record may be two very different things.

    Others that have been filed with an administrative hearing office?

  14. avatar
    ellen January 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    The following is a powerful anti-birther article:

    http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/24/president-obama-a-natural-born-citizen-will-not-be-in-georgia-on-thursday/

  15. avatar
    G January 24, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Good read! Thanks.

    I took particular note of this paragraph:

    Republican leaders have a choice to face with birthers. They can continue to remain silent, and accept the small minority to define the rest of the party as out of touch fringe who have an irrational need to remove a duly elected President by any means necessary. The party must decide if it wishes to coddle those who are blinded by paranoia, or demonstrate to independent voters that Republicans plan to win on policy.

    In light of Rick Santorum’s poor handling of the issue as well this week, I definitely think that Birtherim’s true impact on 2012 will simply to be as an albatross around the GOP’s neck…

    ellen: The following is a powerful anti-birther article:http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/24/president-obama-a-natural-born-citizen-will-not-be-in-georgia-on-thursday/

  16. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    Judge Mental: Others that have been filed with an administrative hearing office?

    Well, there are some questions about what exactly filed means.

    But Paul Andrew Mitchell has filed something.

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy January 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    gorefan: I don’t think this stuff was meant for Judge Malihi.
    On his website, he says that in appeals all the briefs are attached to the appeal. He expects that eventually the Georgia defeat will be heard in the Supreme Court. That’s his ultimate audience. This is essentially the same strategy he employed in the Chrysler case (fail all the way to the Supreme Court).
    We all know how that worked out.

    That is a bit of a fuzzy question, in part because we are dealing with a hearing before an ALJ (and the lack of a public docket). First question is whether he did request, and get leave of court to file. If not, circular file it goes. Then there is the question of whether it even is appealable under Georgia law, and to whom? If the Sec of State tells the birthers to go pound sand, do they have any recourse one way or the other? (I don’t know, and I really don’t feel compelled to research it either.) But assuming that yes, it is appealable to the Georgia courts, and yes, leo did get leave of court to file, so it will be considered part of the official record, odds are slim that any appelate judge would ever look at his missive.
    Generally in appeals, the parties designate a “record excerpt” that is the important parts of the record that the parties refer to in the appelate briefs, and they want the judges to have easy access to (it is copied, bound, and paginated in a separate volume). All the courts I have dealt with specifically ask the parties not to include motions, or briefs in the except (they usually just want evidece, trancripts, and things you attached to your motions/pleadings below). If there was a point important enough to make before, you can make it again in your appelate brief. So the odds of a judge actually going to the full copy of the record to fish out Leo’s “brief” are about on par as the odds of Orly being nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court. I suppose if Leo actually practiced law rather than just playing poker, he might already know that.

  18. avatar
    JoZeppy January 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    OK…read as for as the summary of the argument, and I already lost track of the number of patently false statements Leo made

  19. avatar
    PaulG January 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    Both Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton were born after the death of their respective fathers. Do they still count as NBCs?

  20. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: OK…read as for as the summary of the argument, and I already lost track of the number of patently false statements Leo made

    It might be more effcient to track true statements (if any).

  21. avatar
    Keith January 24, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Reality Check: The infamous later English translation says children [pl] of citizens [pl].

    The infamous English translation says:

    Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

  22. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Reality Check: This certainly does not exclude a child of a parent citizen any more than a sign at a public place that says “children must be accompanied by parents” would require both parents to be present.

    Actually, any one (1) adult who can act as a parent, would do, right? Like a nanny. or a youngish grandfather

    Considering the word “parent” meant relative for Vattel (every other occurrence of the word in The Law of Nations reveals the meaning to be “relative”rather than one member of the pair mother-father), I decided to claim your phrase, of you do not mind.

    By the way, has anyone ever checked whether Rubio’s parents had a sponsor? And was he related, and an American citizen?

    But Keith is right, Vattel even said that England had other rules, and those needed to be respected. Too bad he did not mention Saxony as well…

  23. avatar
    US Citizen January 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    As if any judge is going to read all that. Crazy.
    Crazier is that Donofrio seems to take the position that because the supreme court hasn’t made a specific ruling on something, that it’s otherwise assumed to be settled law by default.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    US Citizen:
    As if any judge is going to read all that. Crazy.
    Crazier is that Donofrio seems to take the position that because the supreme court hasn’t made a specific ruling on something, that it’s otherwise assumed to be settled law by default.

    He must be a really crappy poker player if that is his best bluff.

  25. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    JoZeppy: That is a bit of a fuzzy question, in part because we are dealing with a hearing before an ALJ (and the lack of a public docket).

    Thanks for the detailed answer.

    Let me ask this. There have been several motions by the Swensson attorney. One of them (the one to determine who has the burden of proof) was suppose to be answered by noon yesterday.

    1) Could Jablonski just show up with the COLB and say “here’s the proof” and than force the plaintiffs to prove that he needs more?

    In the motion to produce documents.

    2) Could Jablonski show and say, “most of the documents are irrelevant to eligibility and even if they were, are not in the possession of the President”? And then submit the LFBC and copy of his Presidential passport.

  26. avatar
    yutube January 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

  27. avatar
    J. Potter January 24, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    yutube: academical

    Is that like alchemical? Might be on to something there!

  28. avatar
    gorefan January 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    yutube:
    There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

    How come his research doesn’t include William Rawle – “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ A View of the Constitution of the United States

    Since he goes to great lengths to explain English Common Law, how come his reseach doesn’t include Chief Justice Cockburn – “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” 1869 “Nationality: or The Law Relating to Subjects and Aliens, Considered with a View to Future Legislation”

    Do you think Leo knows more about English Common Law than one of the most important justices in English History or more about the US Constitution than William Rawle, who knew many of the Framers ?

  29. avatar
    Arthur January 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Yutube:

    The refutation of Mr. Donofrio’s “research” has been going on for years. Click on his name at the side-bar near the top of the page and you’ll be able to access all the relevant articles and comments. At this point, Leo’s name has become a punch-line, hence all the pathetic jokes.

    We all wish you well as you explore other options to reality.

    yutube: There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research.

  30. avatar
    JoZeppy January 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    gorefan: Thanks for the detailed answer.Let me ask this. There have been several motions by the Swensson attorney. One of them (the one to determine who has the burden of proof) was suppose to be answered by noon yesterday. 1) Could Jablonski just show up with the COLB and say “here’s the proof” and than force the plaintiffs to prove that he needs more?In the motion to produce documents.2) Could Jablonski show and say, “most of the documents are irrelevant to eligibility and even if they were, are not in the possession of the President”? And then submit the LFBC and copy of his Presidential passport.

    Personally, if I was Jablonski, I would offer to provide the court the COLB at the opening of the hearing. Pretty much say we are willing to spare the court ruling on everything else by providing the one definitive piece of evidence that puts this all to rest. There is no reason why he couldn’t do that. I’m sure the Malihi would still hear out the quacks, but it would probably put them on the defensive. You can then just attack everyone they offer as a witness on the basis of their qualifications and the fact that their testimony is irrelevant. However, he has hardly handled this proceeding as I would thus far, so I really don’t know what he plans on doing Thursday.

  31. avatar
    Rickey January 24, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    yutube:
    There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

    Well, there is nothing about Leo’s rants which could be considered academical. They are comical, however.

  32. avatar
    JoZeppy January 24, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    yutube: There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

    I think what you meant to say is, “there is no academic value to any of Leo’s “research.” At least when we requote WKA, we get it right. Leo has been quoting and misrepresenting the same couple of sentances in Minor for 3 years. Riddle me this Batman, if his research is so strong, why hasn’t he published in a law review? It has been nearly 3 years since he came out with this novel idea.

  33. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    yutube:
    There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

    You’re right, of course. All we have is stuff from such fly-by-night operations as The Congressional Research Service arm of The Library of Congress.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74195363/CRS-Report-Jack-Maskell-Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-14-Nov-2011

  34. avatar
    US Citizen January 24, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    It’s still just crazy to think that a state administrative judge will, as birthers seem to believe, overrule federal law.
    They really think this is a trial. Many believe that if Obama doesn’t show there’s going to a be a default judgment provided.
    Many birthers seem to putting forth “at least it’s a start” type statements as if they’ve latched onto something that will grow or cause some snowball effect.
    It’s not a start any more than a guy on a ten speed bike somehow being allowed to enter the Indianapolis 500.
    The start and finish will be seconds apart and no way to ever catch up or win.
    This is like a movie with one bad scene and then “The End.”
    Nothing more.
    I doubt Obama will get anything more than a single line on his morning brief sheet indicating what happened.
    Perhaps not even that. Why bother the president with something that doesn’t matter?

  35. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    yutube:
    There is absolutely nothing of academical value you have to say to counter his research, but requote the same thing from WKA and make pathetic jokes here and there.

    To echo JoZeppy’s request, please cite any credible law review (online blogs don’t count) where this attorney, poker player and self-proclaimed Paraclete has been published with regards to his two citizen parents requirement for natural born citizen eligibility.

    Thanks so much in advance.

  36. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    And some of the jokes are pretty good.

  37. avatar
    y_p_w January 24, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    JoZeppy: Personally, if I was Jablonski, I would offer to provide the court the COLB at the opening of the hearing. Pretty much say we are willing to spare the court ruling on everything else by providing the one definitive piece of evidence that puts this all to rest. There is no reason why he couldn’t do that. I’m sure the Malihi would still hear out the quacks, but it would probably put them on the defensive. You can then just attack everyone they offer as a witness on the basis of their qualifications and the fact that their testimony is irrelevant. However, he has hardly handled this proceeding as I would thus far, so I really don’t know what he plans on doing Thursday.

    I’ve said it before, but what is there to prevent a nutjob from the plaintiffs’ side requesting to see and handle the document, then attempting to destroy/eat/mutilate it such that it’s theoretically invalid and therefore inadmissable as evidence?

    I’ve been a juror in a courtroom, and most of the attorneys want to be able to practice law again, so I doubt any of them try something like that. However, their clients could ask to see it, and I wouldn’t put it above them to try a stunt like that just because they would think it would be like putting the genie back in the bottle (Hey – you can’t accept it as evidence because it says any alterations make it invalid.).

    Of course what I’d like to see is Jablonski reaching into his briefcase and just pulling out another certified copy obtained for the $4 that Hawaii charges for the second and subsequent copies. Heck – have a whole stack of them and let each party handle one at the same time. Maybe even hand one out to each spectator as a souvenir (with a minor alteration to invalidate). It would make for a stupendous sight gag.

  38. avatar
    J. Potter January 24, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: Riddle me this Batman, if his research is so strong, why hasn’t he published in a law review?

    A very good question! You’d think such a monumental correction to American jurisprudence would make a wave or two. Finally clearing up the confusion of the age should merit at least one ticker-tape parade per time zone. Justice Roberts should be begging Donofrito to take his place! At his earliest convenience of course. Wouldn’t want the finest legal mind of our time pressured by undue haste.

    Or his crap could be relegated to Snopes.

  39. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    y_p_w: Of course what I’d like to see is Jablonski reaching into his briefcase and just pulling out another certified copy

    Or alternatively, after the bailiff has put the cuffs on the birther….

    “Your Honor, since the Plaintiff has elected to destroy evidence in full view of the court, I move for a continuance to allow defense to obtain additional certified copies at plaintiff’s expense. Sometime in mid November would be sufficient, if it please the court.”

    “Motion Granted”

  40. avatar
    J. Potter January 24, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    y_p_w: Heck – have a whole stack of them and let each party handle one at the same time. Maybe even hand one out to each spectator as a souvenir (with a minor alteration to invalidate). It would make for a stupendous sight gag.

    Have a train of C-130s litterbomb them all over Atlanta, beginning during tonight’s State of the Union, and continuing to 9am Thursday! Depending on weather conditions, those 36 drops should pretty well coat downtown. Final drop for 8:30am, right over the hearing location, of course. How’d that be for a pre-emptive strike?

  41. avatar
    y_p_w January 24, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    J. Potter: Have a train of C-130s litterbomb them all over Atlanta, beginning during tonight’s State of the Union, and continuing to 9am Thursday! Depending on weather conditions, those 36 drops should pretty well coat downtown. Final drop for 8:30am, right over the hearing location, of course. How’d that be for a pre-emptive strike?

    Don’t know about that.

    Remember the panic that happened when one of the modified 747s used as Air Force One circled around New York Harbor so that they could take photos of it with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop? That caused some serious panic because the 9/11 attacks were still fresh in peoples’ minds.

    I also remember when the US Navy Blue Angels showed up for practice in the early 80s in San Francisco with little announcement. They started their pracice runs without informing the city of giving much advance publicity. Some people thought it must have been a Soviet invasion.

    I rather like the idea of putting people to work handing them out in downtown Atlanta like someone handing out coupons for a free drink with a slice of pizza.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check January 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Good point Keith. Even Lord God de Vattel knew those damn Limey’s were different.

    Keith: The infamous English translation says:

  43. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    y_p_w: Maybe even hand one out to each spectator as a souvenir (with a minor alteration to invalidate). It would make for a stupendous sight gag.

    Get Hawaii to certify a case of Obama coffee mugs as valid copies.

  44. avatar
    yutube January 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    JoZeppy: I think what you meant to say is, “there is no academic value to any of Leo’s “research.”At least when we requote WKA, we get it right.Leo has been quoting and misrepresenting the same couple of sentances in Minor for 3 years.Riddle me this Batman, if his research is so strong, why hasn’t he published in a law review?It has been nearly 3 years since he came out with this novel idea.

    Perhaps you should debate his new points of the research instead of the sentences in Minor that everyone knows about? Isn’t this a blog to refute birther stuff that comes to light, or is it to repeat the same crap about the Paraclete all over again? Go ahead. 1. Jus Soli and the Christian aspect; 2. Natural born subject vs Natural Born citizen and their civic rights; 3. Inglis v. Trustees disand Shanks vs Dupont discussions; 4. Arthur’s 4th Annual Message to Congress; 5. Obama a Naturalized citizen of Hawaii?

    If the so called Constitutional experts don’t have anything to say about these things then perhaps you should just shut up until you learn more about these points, imo.

  45. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    yutube: If the so called Constitutional experts don’t have anything to say about these things then perhaps you should just shut up until you learn more about these points, imo.

    And Leo is who? I do not see Constitutional Expert on his resume. An who here deemed themselves Constitutional Experts?

    I guess you missed the thread here where most people do not even consider themselves armchair lawyers or was it willful ignorance.

  46. avatar
    y_p_w January 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Majority Will: Get Hawaii to certify a case of Obama coffee mugs as valid copies.

    Well I guess that would be allowed under Hawaii’s laws. But how do you emboss ceramic? And what if one is submitted in a passport application? Anyone want to call up Fuddy and ask her if she’ll go along with the idea?

    That would be a cool idea almost like US gold bullion coins with legal tender value.

    Seriously though, there are cutesy “heirloom birth certificates” from some states that are suitable for framing. Most are perfectly valid certified birth certificates, except that I’m not sure anyone would really want some government employee to manhandle something like that.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    y_p_w: Well I guess that would be allowed under Hawaii’s laws.But how do you emboss ceramic?And what if one is submitted in a passport application?Anyone want to call up Fuddy and ask her if she’ll go along with the idea?

    That would be a cool idea almost like US gold bullion coins with legal tender value.

    Seriously though, there are cutesy “heirloom birth certificates” from some states that are suitable for framing.Most are perfectly valid certified birth certificates, except that I’m not sure anyone would really want some government employee to manhandle something like that.

    Details, details. πŸ˜€

  48. avatar
    Majority Will January 24, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    yutube: or is it to repeat the same crap about the Paraclete all over again?

    Would you prefer Burnweed, Jet Wintzer or Jet Schizo?

  49. avatar
    JPotter January 24, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    y_p_w: But how do you emboss ceramic?

    By making impressions in the clay or porcelain before firing the finished piece!
    As an alternative, or for a combinatory effect, you replicate the seal in glaze, making, in effect, truly permanent ink!

  50. avatar
    JPotter January 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    y_p_w: I rather like the idea of putting people to work handing them out in downtown Atlanta like someone handing out coupons for a free drink with a slice of pizza.

    Hand out the BCs with the coupons! They want to call him “foodstamp” President, fine, own it!

    Hey, everyone like free pizza.

  51. avatar
    G January 24, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    Atlanta? Free Pizza?? Campaign strategy???

    …Are you sure we’re not talking about Herman Cain? πŸ˜‰

    JPotter: Hand out the BCs with the coupons! They want to call him “foodstamp” President, fine, own it! Hey, everyone like free pizza.

  52. avatar
    US Citizen January 25, 2012 at 3:21 am #

    (Joke)

    Birther: Obama is a Muslim socialist nazi communist usurper and an abortionist US-hater from Kenya and Indonesia.

    Obot: What else did you expect from someone who worked at 31 Flavors?

  53. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2012 at 3:51 am #

    yutube: Perhaps you should debate his new points of the research instead of the sentences in Minor that everyone knows about?Isn’t this a blog to refute birther stuff that comes to light, or is it to repeat the same crap about the Paraclete all over again? Go ahead. 1. Jus Soli and the Christian aspect; 2. Natural born subject vs Natural Born citizen and their civic rights; 3. Inglis v. Trustees disand Shanks vs Dupont discussions; 4. Arthur’s 4th Annual Message to Congress; 5. Obama a Naturalized citizen of Hawaii?

    If the so called Constitutional experts don’t have anything to say about these things then perhaps you should just shut up until you learn more about these points, imo.

    I have no idea whether Mr Donofrio’s many arguments are sound or not, since they are beyond my professional experience, but as I have done here in the past, speaking as a French lawyer, I can competently attest that his analysis of Vattel’s on Page 24 seq. of his brief is totally incorrect.

  54. avatar
    Northland10 January 25, 2012 at 5:55 am #

    J. Potter: Have a train of C-130s litterbomb them all over Atlanta, beginning during tonight’s State of the Union, and continuing to 9am Thursday! Depending on weather conditions, those 36 drops should pretty well coat downtown. Final drop for 8:30am, right over the hearing location, of course. How’d that be for a pre-emptive strike?

    y_p_w: Don’t know about that.

    Remember the panic that happened when one of the modified 747s used as Air Force One circled around New York Harbor

    Maybe just a couple of Blackhawk helicopters to drop them at various places (the hearing, Swennson’s and Taitz’s, etc.) Many of the birther folks also follow the militia/sovereign citizen paranoia of black helicopters following them so you might as well give the the real things for once. Though, it may be best if the states do it with the National Guard so to avoid all that pesky Posse Comitatus Act whining.

  55. avatar
    US Citizen January 25, 2012 at 6:09 am #

    I’d just like to hire an Obama impersonator to sit in the audience and never say a word.

  56. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2012 at 7:05 am #

    US Citizen: I’d just like to hire an Obama impersonator to sit in the audience and never say a word.

    That would be a terrific bit of performance art!

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    Wiping screen …

    Daniel: If “ludicrous brief” isn’t an actual legal term… it should be.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    That’s exactly what a California judge said about John McCain.

    In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

    Robinson v. Bowen

    Reality Check: So in effect he is saying that even if President Obama were born in another country he would be a retroactive natural born citizen. I think i just heard so heads explode on that thought.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Well, the birthers all know that there is a difference between “filed” and “accepted.”

    gorefan: Well, there are some questions about what exactly filed means.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 9:15 am #

    I have been told that ALJ decisions can be appealed to the Superior Court. I don’t have the citation.

    JoZeppy: Then there is the question of whether it even is appealable under Georgia law, and to whom?

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    In writing my article, I discussed the opening bits of Donofrio’s brief. He opens with Minor.

    The “Christian” aspect (and I haven’t read his argument) seems bizarre. I certainly don’t remember anything about Christianity defining the mutual obligations between subject and sovereign in Calvin’s case, or in any of the books I have read on the history of citizenship.

    The Supreme Court in US v Wong talked about the equivalence of subject and citizen. Various states used natural born subject in their legislation AFTER the ratification of the Constitution. That’s been covered on this blog before.

    I did look at Arthur’s 4th state of the union, and it doesn’t support Donofrio’s contention in context.

    I didn’t get to the “naturalized citizen of Hawaii” but it seems absurd on its face.

    yutube: Perhaps you should debate his new points of the research instead of the sentences in Minor that everyone knows about? Isn’t this a blog to refute birther stuff that comes to light, or is it to repeat the same crap about the Paraclete all over again? Go ahead. 1. Jus Soli and the Christian aspect; 2. Natural born subject vs Natural Born citizen and their civic rights; 3. Inglis v. Trustees disand Shanks vs Dupont discussions; 4. Arthur’s 4th Annual Message to Congress; 5. Obama a Naturalized citizen of Hawaii?

  62. avatar
    Scientist January 25, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The “Christian” aspect (and I haven’t read his argument) seems bizarre. I certainly don’t remember anything about Christianity defining the mutual obligations between subject and sovereign in Calvin’s case, or in any of the books I have read on the history of citizenship

    As I understand it, Leo’s argument is basically as follows: At various period in English history, non-Christians (i.e., Jews) were excluded from citizenship, even though born on English soil (this is true). Therefore, jus soli, cannot apply in the US where citizenship is not linked to religion. But, countries that practiced jus sanguinis, like France, the German states and Spain also excluded Jews from citizenship until the time of Napoleon. So that makes jus sanguinis un-American as well.

    The conclusion is that the US would have to grant citizenship by neither birth nor ancestry, but, rather, by, let’s say, an examination given at the age of majority. Which might be a good thing, because it would strip most birthers of citizenship.

  63. avatar
    The Magic M January 25, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    US Citizen: I’d just like to hire an Obama impersonator to sit in the audience and never say a word.

    Idea of the Century! *lol*

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, the birthers all know that there is a difference between “filed” and “accepted.”

    It’s just another Catch-22. If it says “filed”, they go “but it was never accepted, so that means it’s not valid”. If it says “accepted”, they go “but it was never filed, so it’s not valid either”.

  64. avatar
    Daniel January 25, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    Scientist: The conclusion is that the US would have to grant citizenship by neither birth nor ancestry, but, rather, by, let’s say, an examination given at the age of majority. Which might be a good thing, because it would strip most birthers of citizenship.

    The candidate for citizenship will turn his head and cough…

  65. avatar
    Majority Will January 25, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    The Magic M: It’s just another Catch-22. If it says “filed”, they go “but it was never accepted, so that means it’s not valid”. If it says “accepted”, they go “but it was never filed, so it’s not valid either”.

    That sounds like it could just be a major, major, major, major misunderstanding.

  66. avatar
    Majority Will January 25, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Scientist: As I understand it, Leo’s argument is basically as follows:At various period in English history, non-Christians (i.e., Jews) were excluded from citizenship, even though born on English soil (this is true).Therefore, jus soli, cannot apply in the US where citizenship is not linked to religion.But, countries that practiced jus sanguinis, like France, the German states and Spain also excluded Jews from citizenship until the time of Napoleon.So that makes jus sanguinis un-American as well.

    The conclusion is that the US would have to grant citizenship by neither birth nor ancestry, but, rather, by, let’s say, an examination given at the age of majority.Which might be a good thing, because it would strip most birthers of citizenship.

    At least this wannabe scholar is consistent by spewing nothing but asinine drivel.

  67. avatar
    y_p_w January 25, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    The Magic M: Idea of the Century! *lol*

    It’s just another Catch-22. If it says “filed”, they go “but it was never accepted, so that means it’s not valid”. If it says “accepted”, they go “but it was never filed, so it’s not valid either”.

    When I was kid I used to make up my own explanations for why things were or how things worked. I had no experience and absolutely no proof. I think we’ve all been there. However, the birthers seem to still be at this point in their emotional and intellectual development. At that age a rational person seeks out someone who understand what the heck this all means rather than just making stuff up because it somehow feels right or fits into their biases. Now if I make a mistake in fact, I admit it and move on.

    Accepted vs Filed was nothing more than standard header text that changed when someone rewrote the program that generates the COLB printout. It was no different than how the title was changed from CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH to CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Well, as I said from the beginning, Donofrio has to overturn US v Wong. Not gonna happen.

    Scientist: As I understand it, Leo’s argument is basically as follows: At various period in English history, non-Christians (i.e., Jews) were excluded from citizenship, even though born on English soil (this is true). Therefore, jus soli, cannot apply in the US where citizenship is not linked to religion.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    It is unfortunate for the rest of us that Donofrio scrubbed his old web content. When he started out, he said that his citizenship theory was “making new law” meaning that he was trying to overturn precedent, particularly US v Wong. However, that flies in the face of his current argument that Minor v Happersett is precedent. It can’t be new law and precedent both.

  70. avatar
    Horus January 25, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    J. Potter: That’s a snazzy looking siren Doc! I’m tempted to pick one up …. except they look pretty pricey $120 for plastic?

    Here’s one for less, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hand-Crank-Manual-Operated-ALARM-SIREN-Loud-110-DB-VMS-100P-/200700540238

  71. avatar
    J. Potter January 25, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Scientist: The conclusion is that the US would have to grant citizenship by neither birth nor ancestry, but, rather, by, let’s say, an examination given at the age of majority. Which might be a good thing, because it would strip most birthers of citizenship.

    Nah, scientist, this is to be a capitalist society, not a merit-based society! Birthers aren’t silly enough to lock themselves out by angling for that which they cannot achieve. I say they pick up on my “citizenship for sale” snark from over in the taxes thread. They can buy their franchise with their paypal clicks! “Help me vote against The Usurper in the upcoming election! Click early, click often!”

  72. avatar
    Majority Will January 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It is unfortunate for the rest of us that Donofrio scrubbed his old web content. When he started out, he said that his citizenship theory was “making new law” meaning that he was trying to overturn precedent, particularly US v Wong. However, that flies in the face of his current argument that Minor v Happersett is precedent. It can’t be new law and precedent both.

    The Internet Wayback Machine can’t be scrubbed.

    Here’s a link to his blog going back to December, 2008:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20081220125514/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” – CURRENT COURT PURPOSELY FUMBLED

    (with WUSSY over the SCOTUS) December 19, 2008

    (excerpt) They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball and get hit.

    I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case. Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this. Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October. I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit.

    I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue. As I’ve stated in comments to my last blog (which was satire people), 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.

    – – – – –

    Interesting use of satire.

    More at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

  73. avatar
    Scientist January 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    J. Potter: Nah, scientist, this is to be a capitalist society, not a merit-based society! Birthers aren’t silly enough to lock themselves out by angling for that which they cannot achieve. I say they pick up on my “citizenship for sale” snark from over in the taxes thread. They can buy their franchise with their paypal clicks! “Help me vote against The Usurper in the upcoming election! Click early, click often!”

    There actually is a form of citizenship for sale. You can get a green card if you invest $ 1,000,000 in a US business and create or preserve 10 jobs for US workers. Of course once you have a green card, after 5 years you can become a citizen. Canada has a similar program and you only need to invest $100,000. I know there are bills in Congress to make the US program less onerous, like Canada’s.

    Some small countries will directly sell citizenship. The Caribbean island nation of Dominica will happily sell you citizenship for $ 100,000. You don’t have to live there at all, just visit for a week or so to have a few interviews with government officials. You can keep any other citizenships you have and the entire thing is strictly confidential.

    The truth is any US President or candidate could hold Dominican citizenship and no one would know except Dominica. Since Mitt likes to bank in the Caribbean, one wonders; certainly $100,000 would be pocket change to him.

  74. avatar
    US Citizen January 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    “The Internet Wayback Machine can’t be scrubbed.”

    Actually it can.
    Any owner of an included website can write them and ask for their domain to be removed.
    But I agree that in pragmatic terms, many people don’t know that. Many don’t even know it exists.
    Grab what you can before they find out?

  75. avatar
    y_p_w January 25, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    US Citizen: “The Internet Wayback Machine can’t be scrubbed.”Actually it can.Any owner of an included website can write them and ask for their domain to be removed.But I agree that in pragmatic terms, many people don’t know that. Many don’t even know it exists.Grab what you can before they find out?

    Google and Bing have caches but the timing of when they get saved is unpredictable. You’d also have to hit the exact page in a search.

  76. avatar
    y_p_w January 25, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Scientist: There actually is a form of citizenship for sale. You can get a green card if you invest $ 1,000,000 in a US business and create or preserve 10 jobs for US workers. Of course once you have a green card, after 5 years you can become a citizen. Canada has a similar program and you only need to invest $100,000. I know there are bills in Congress to make the US program less onerous, like Canada’s.

    They also have a less restrictive program called the E-2 visa, but it doesn’t grant any kind of permanent status. It might be possible to change status, but I understand that most people stay in the US via keeping their businesses or investments viable. For the most part it gets renewed on an annual basis, although the Feds are secretive about exactly how much one need to invest or how big a business one needs to run.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa

  77. avatar
    Obsolete January 25, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Scientist: The truth is any US President or candidate could hold Dominican citizenship and no one would know except Dominica. Since Mitt likes to bank in the Caribbean, one wonders; certainly $100,000 would be pocket change to him

    That’s why the birters need to ask Mitt to cough up any passports, naturalization applications, and citizenship records for any and all countries on Earth, Mars, and Galaxy Three.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will January 25, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    US Citizen:
    “The Internet Wayback Machine can’t be scrubbed.”

    Actually it can.
    Any owner of an included website can write them and ask for their domain to be removed.
    But I agree that in pragmatic terms, many people don’t know that. Many don’t even know it exists.
    Grab what you can before they find out?

    Good point. I stand corrected.

    It is usually easy to download or capture many sites including archived ones before they
    get scrubbed.

    So yes, grab what you can before they get scrubbed (or eaten by the Langoliers).

  79. avatar
    y_p_w January 25, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    US Citizen: “The Internet Wayback Machine can’t be scrubbed.”Actually it can.Any owner of an included website can write them and ask for their domain to be removed.But I agree that in pragmatic terms, many people don’t know that. Many don’t even know it exists.Grab what you can before they find out?

    They don’t necessarily even need to write to them. There’s an automated means of avoiding it (adding a robots.txt file to the site’s root directory), which also scrubs any past archiving:

    http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

    The Internet Archive is not interested in offering access to web sites or other Internet documents whose authors do not want their materials in the collection. To remove your site from the Wayback Machine, place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. http://www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt).

    The robots.txt file will do two things:

    1.It will remove documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
    2.It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.

    To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say:

    User-agent: ia_archiver
    Disallow: /

    Robots.txt can be used to block access to the whole domain, or any file or directory within. There are a large number of resources for webmasters and site owners describing this method and how to use it, including http://www.robotstxt.org/.

    If you cannot put a robots.txt file up, read our exclusion policy. If you think it applies to you, send a request to us at info@archive.org.

  80. avatar
    Majority Will January 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    y_p_w: They don’t necessarily even need to write to them.There’s an automated means of avoiding it (adding a robots.txt file to the site’s root directory), which also scrubs any past archiving:

    http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

    The Internet Archive is not interested in offering access to web sites or other Internet documents whose authors do not want their materials in the collection. To remove your site from the Wayback Machine, place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. http://www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt).


    The robots.txt file will do two things:

    1.It will remove documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
    2.It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.

    To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say:

    User-agent: ia_archiver
    Disallow: /

    Robots.txt can be used to block access to the whole domain, or any file or directory within. There are a large number of resources for webmasters and site owners describing this method and how to use it, including http://www.robotstxt.org/.

    If you cannot put a robots.txt file up, read our exclusion policy. If you think it applies to you, send a request to us at info@archive.org.

    But there’s no mention of the full internet archives kept by Soros and the NWO.

    😎

  81. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Scientist: Dr. Conspiracy: The “Christian” aspect (and I haven’t read his argument) seems bizarre. I certainly don’t remember anything about Christianity defining the mutual obligations between subject and sovereign in Calvin’s case, or in any of the books I have read on the history of citizenship

    As I understand it, Leo’s argument is basically as follows: At various period in English history, non-Christians (i.e., Jews) were excluded from citizenship, even though born on English soil (this is true). Therefore, jus soli, cannot apply in the US where citizenship is not linked to religion. But, countries that practiced jus sanguinis, like France, the German states and Spain also excluded Jews from citizenship until the time of Napoleon. So that makes jus sanguinis un-American as well.

    Calvin’s case says that anyone born in England or Scotland after the King of Scotland became King of England was a natural born subject in England. The “birthers” at the time had argued that Calvin was an NB subject of the King of Scotland, not an NB subject of the King of England, even though that was one and the same person.

    But in England the King was the head of the Anglican church of England, while in Scotland, the King became a calvinist when crossing the border. .

    Religion therefore cannot be a factor. To quote the main proponent in the case “Neither soil nor climate makes for allegiance, but jurisdiction. (“neither soil” referred to Calais and Tournai, English possessions on French and German soil).

  82. avatar
    JPotter January 25, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Majority Will: But there’s no mention of the full internet archives kept by Soros and the NWO.

    Don’t forget ICANN’s plan for a post-apocalypse reboot … what constitutes the essence of the internet? Maybe the real scan of Obama’s BC is in there. πŸ˜‰