Main Menu

Donofrio’s “dirty little secret” (update 2)

My title refers to an article on Leo Donofrio’s blog from January 27, titled: The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

It’s one of those condescending “I’m a lawyer and you’re not” things that Donofrio is fond of.  In this case, Donofrio talks about the “code of statutory construction.” I’m a mathematician by training, not a lawyer, but we mathematicians are trained in logical argument and even I can see where Donofrio runs off the road and into the trees.

You can read his article, but I’ll include an excerpt here:

The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

That makes sense (whether it’s accurate or not I can’t say). However, Donofrio then gives two examples from the Constitution, the Article II qualifications of the President (he calls Clause A) and the 14th Amendment clause that those born in and under the jurisdiction of the United States are born citizens (Clause B). Even though these two are about different things, Donofrio labels the first “specific” and the second “general”. I’m not sure I want to jump on the bandwagon with that, but for the moment it can slide. What I can’t sign onto is when Donofrio comes up with the following non sequitur, like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat:

According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

Following on the magical theme, talk of smoke and mirrors is appropriate because by using placeholders “Clause A” and “Clause B” without their actual meaning, Donofrio obscures what he is actually saying. Let me show what’s behind the smoke by lowering the level of abstraction. This is what Donofrio would have us believe:

According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more [of a natural born citizen]  than Clause B [requires of a natural born citizen].

Put like that, Donofrio’s argument is exposed as absurd because Clause B (the 14th Amendment) says nothing at all about natural born citizens.

A more reasonable application Donofrio’s general/specific duality is to label the general  class “citizens” (the actual subject of the 14th Amendment), those born or naturalized in the United States, and assign to the “specific” class natural born citizens, who must be born in the United States (not naturalized). That would be consistent with judicial history and the true subjects of the two clauses. Something more is required of a natural born citizen than just a citizen (i.e. birth).

Donofrio says that this is not rocket science. If it’s not, why did a federal district judge in Virginia just last month say that it is well settled that those born in the United States are “natural born citizens” in direct contradiction to Donofrio’s claim? Did Judge Gibney skip class when they talked about statutory construction? I think not.

And thereby the “dirty little secret” is revealed: Donofrio didn’t make a logical argument at all.

Update:

A number of attorneys have weighed in leaving comments on this article, and I recommend the reader look at those. They criticize Donofrio’s description of statutory construction being an inflexible requirement. That said, one needs no wiggle room in statutory construction in order to refute Donofrio’s argument (again).

Donofrio says “regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific” and if we accept that statement, the general description of citizenship in the 14 Amendment cannot erase the meaning of “natural born citizen” that existed before, and the meaning that existed before doesn’t require that a natural born citizen have citizen parents. As Vice-Chancellor Sandford wrote in 1844:

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Update 2:

One commenter seems to think that lawyers should go over to Leo’s heavily-censored blog to debate him. The problem with that is that when you prove Leo is wrong, he won’t publish your comment.

Screenshot from Donorfio blog showing comment held in moderation

This comment, proving Leo misrepresented his sources, has never appeared.

Learn more:

Print Friendly

212 Responses to Donofrio’s “dirty little secret” (update 2)

  1. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 12, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    “code of statutory construction”?

    Never hear of it. There are statutory construction maxims that a lawyer who drafts a statute needs to learn in order to make sure the statute passes constitutional muster.

    That is why natural born citizen in the constitutution should be under statutory construction maxim to be read with its English common law meaning.

    The problem with Vattelites in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrates their disregard that the Constitution provisions are framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignores the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.

    Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) (“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)

    Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925): “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

    Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning. “ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

    Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
    then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.” [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999) (It is a well-established rule of construction that “`[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’) (internal citations omitted)

    Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. “The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.” Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that “absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction.” Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

    In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

    As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

    The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    And so by not explicitly saying otherwise, the 14th Amendment didn’t erase the common law definition of natural born citizen.

    Atticus Finch: The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  3. avatar
    RetiredLawyer February 12, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    I have to agree. There is no “code” of statutory construction. There are maxims, and case made rules, and common sense, but there is no fixed “code”.

    One rule is that sections of the constitution are not be read in a manner that creates a conflict between them, unless there is a direct amendment. A corollary is that a later provision must be read in harmony with an earlier provision. From this is what everyone except birthers understands: The common law definition of natural born citizen is what is meant by the constitution and the 14th amendment merely states that this means anyone born in the US, including former slaves.

  4. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 12, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    Another lawyer here: no such thing as a “code” of statutory construction, and certainly not a mandatory one. There are generalized maxims, often called “rules”, but they would be more accurately be designated as “general principles of interpretation.”

  5. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 12, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    No “code.” I was taught the canons of statutory construction.

  6. avatar
    John Woodman February 12, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    Majorly cool discussion. Illuminating.

    Thanks for analyzing this, Doc. I had taken at least a brief look, but didn’t analyze it as clearly as this.

    My point was that — according to Donofrio’s — his general clause determined or modified the meaning of his specific clause. That being the case, I found his argument self-contradictory. First he tells us that the general clause cannot govern the specific, and then he tells us that, therefore, it does.

    Atticus Finch:
    In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

    Excellent and very important point.

  7. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 3:14 am #

    Hey Leo: If Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production.

    You are a fifth rate lawyer, and a third rate poker player. I, however, am a first rate Borscht Beltian.

  8. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 4:16 am #

    Every time I hear some claim about the Constitution, particularly if the claimant invokes any sort of “original intent” sentiment, I keep in mind two things:

    1. The Constitution was a compromise. There was no single unified understanding that descended from on high; this isn’t the Pentecost, it’s real history, and history is dirty. Representatives from 13 states, recently colonies, hailing from separate legal traditions, numerous religions, and a variety of classes and lifestyles, came together to revise the Articles of Confederation. The Framers brought many different understandings to the process, and came away with many different understandings of the resulting document … as evidenced by the heated debates before, during, and after the process, some of which continue to this day. When I hear “… according to the Founders’ original intent …” I ask, “Wait; which Founder?”

    2. The Constitution is a big picture document. It did reinvent the “big wheel” by outlining a new federal government. It did not reinvent the “little wheels” by meddling in states’ internal affairs, or rearranging life at an individual level. The Constitution was a tough enough sell as it was, asking the states to submit to a centralized gov’t. It was a continuation of, an extension of, existing legal traditions. If it had represented a break with existing traditions, it’d still be waiting on ratification. Anytime the Constitution is presented as an impenetrable legal barrier, as though all legal events should be thought of as Before Constitution and After Ratification, you can assume the claim is crap. It was a reboot of the collective organization of the states, nothing smaller.
    For further confirmation of just how “hands off” the Constitution was toward the little things, I refer you to the Bill of Rights.

  9. avatar
    ballantine February 12, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    If Donofrio was better educated he would know that the maxim’s of statutory construction are just one interpretative tool and is rarely dispositive in Constitutional interpretation. He would know there is quite a bit of truth in Llewellyn’s famous claim that for every maxim, there is a counter maxim that leads to an opposite result. There is no rule that such maxims overclear the clear intent and history which is quite clear in the case of the 14th Amendment.

  10. avatar
    Bob February 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Donofrio is like a child who puts more energy into arguing with a parent about cleaning up his room than it would take to just clean it up.

  11. avatar
    JoZeppy February 12, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Perhaps if Leo spent more time practicing law rather than playing poker he might actually remember things correctly. Again…no “codes” of statutory construction taught in my law school. Cannons of statutory construction/interpretation, but no codes, and those aren’t nearly as rigid as Leo states. This may seem like hair splitting, but if you’re going to pull the “I’m an attorney, and you’re not, and this means I know better,” he should at least get the terms of art right. But more to the point, the failure of his argument has nothing to do with statutory construction or interpretation. For it to matter, the Courts would have to accept that at some time, the Vattelest argument was the law of the land. Quite simply the fatal flaw with his argument is that at its core, it’s total B.S. There is no problem with the statutory interpretation of the 14th Amendedment and the NBC clause simply because it is widely accepted that the 14th amendment merely reaffirmed existing rights…It changed nothing except to remove any question about whether Dred Scott decision was still good law. So all this quibbling about his “code of statutory construction” is a waste of time since it presupposes the two parent theory was ever accepted. He’s still exactly where he started, with the courts stating his theores are absolute rubbish.

  12. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Donofrio, Apuzzo etc. are to law as “free energy” scammers are to science: they know just enough vocabulary to spew extremely verbose gobbledygook that “looks legal” and dazzles those who want to believe but there’s no factual or logical argument there.

  13. avatar
    Keith February 12, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Joe Acerbic:
    Donofrio, Apuzzo etc. are to law as “free energy” scammers are to science: they know just enough vocabulary to spew extremely verbose gobbledygook that “looks legal” and dazzles those who want to believe but there’s no factual or logical argument there.

    Agreed. A perfect simile.

  14. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 12, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Another lawyer here. Just for grins I searched “Vattel” through my lexis search for Illinois. I found 11 references. I then searched for “Blackstone” and found 1085 references. Are we a Vattel state?

  15. avatar
    John February 12, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Donofrio says “regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific” and if we accept that statement, the general description of citizenship in the 14 Amendment cannot erase the meaning of “natural born citizen” that existed before, and the meaning that existed before doesn’t require that a natural born citizen have citizen parents. As Vice-Chancellor Sandford wrote in 1844:

    The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    —-

    Nice Try Doc, But I invite you to read Minor Vs. Happerset regarding Vice-Chancellor Sanford who appeared to be a recognized AUTHORITY at the time:

    From Minor:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    WKA never solved such doubts as it did not proclaim Wong Kim an NBC. The WKA case never claims to solve the question of doubt posed in Minor. The WKA deals with the citizenship under the governoring rule of the 14th Amendment and leaves the original meaning of NBC reached in Minor in tact and undisturbed.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Joe Acerbic:
    Donofrio, Apuzzo etc. are to law as “free energy” scammers are to science: they know just enough vocabulary to spew extremely verbose gobbledygook that “looks legal” and dazzles those who want to believe but there’s no factual or logical argument there.

    I seriously doubt that very many of their rabid, bigoted sycophants actually read those poseurs’ inane drivel.

    They just know it must be powerful magic.

  17. avatar
    David Farrar February 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    “If our founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.”

    They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, with capital C, not a small “s”. Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  18. avatar
    David Farrar February 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    David Farrar:
    “If our founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.”

    They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, withcapital C, not a small “s”.Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  19. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    David Farrar: They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, with capital C, not a small “s”. Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    Look! Desperate driveby wordplay—in stereo!

  20. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    A kingdom has subjects, a republic has citizens, the commonality here, and what is at dispute, if the type of each, that being “natural born”. No new definition of “natural born” was introduced by the Constitution.

  21. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    David Farrar, you arrogant SOB. What right do you have to impose your view on the rest of the good people of Georgia? If you don’t like Obama for any reason or no reason at all, you are perfectly free to not vote for him. But, everyone else is entitled to draw their own conclusions even if they differ with the great all-knowing “ex`animo”. Thank goodness the Judge and the SOS, are not falling for your nonsense and will allow each voter to draw their OWN conclusion.

  22. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    David Farrar:
    “If our founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.”

    They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, withcapital C, not a small “s”.Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    David in the Constitution, they capitalized the nouns that was the standard at the time.

    For example,

    Article I Section 8

    “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

    “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

    And

    Article III, Section II

    “…between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

    See Subjects is capitalized.

  23. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    Quoting yourself, David? I guess no one else wants to.

  24. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    David Farrar: Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    David,

    Apparently, the people of Massachusetts were not familar with American History:

    In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

    In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

    In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.

    In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

    In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

    In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    So sometimes they used NBC and sometimes NBS.

  25. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    gorefan: So sometimes they used NBC and sometimes NBS.

    Funny how evidence trumps wishful thinking.

  26. avatar
    John Woodman February 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    David Farrar: They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, with capital C, not a small “s”. Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.ex animodavidfarrar

    David,

    They changed “subject” to “citizen.” Even then, they sometimes used the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.

    I suggest you read and understand this post.

  27. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    gorefan: Apparently, the people of Massachusetts were not familar with American History:

    Hard to make a fundamental change overnight … when you’ve been subjects for …. ever. History is not neat and tidy. Silly birthers think it is.

  28. avatar
    John February 12, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    I love how John Woodham claims he is now the scholar on NBC when her not a lawyer and Mario and Leo are and have devoted years of scholarly research to NBC. john Woodman can not even begin to compete with Mario or Leo.

  29. avatar
    John Woodman February 12, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    By the way, David, some of the information here — and linked from here — might well be of significant benefit to you. If you’re bearing any expenses of litigation in this matter, you should do the research. The research will lead you to understand: Your chances of prevailing on the two-citizen-parents-plus-birth-on-US-soil argument are ZERO.

    The reason for this is that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled against you. (See end of post and the “orange trail” following.)

  30. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Arthur: Funny how evidence trumps wishful thinking.

    What’s amazing to me is that someone like Farrar has obviously never read the Constitution or he would not have made the incredibly stupid statement about the capital “C”.

    And it raises the question that birthers refuse to answer, if the terms were used interchangeably, how would they know that the Framers had made a fundamental change in the definition without someone telling them.

    John Potter: Hard to make a fundamental change overnight

    People were not fighting duels because someone else called them a subject instead of a citizen.

  31. avatar
    John Woodman February 12, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    “MichaelN” claimed that the term “natural born citizen” didn’t have any precedent.

    I replied that if it had had no precedent, then the Founding Fathers would have given us a definition for it.

    The fact that they didn’t shows that people already had a good understanding of what it meant.

  32. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 12, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    Thank you one and all, gentlemen. I have zero legal training, so I have been trying to smack down the birther arguments with common-sense lines of reasoning, and so I must tell you, your comments above are like a sweet, cooling breeze of sanity.

    You have reduced D. Farrar to spluttering “But… But… Citizens was CAPITALIZED!!”

    Priceless.

  33. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    John Woodman: The fact that they didn’t shows that people already had a good understanding of what it meant.

    I could swear that point has been made daily for three years because … oh, right, it has! Apparently when you put the cart before the horse, it only turns to the left.

  34. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    Scientist: David Farrar, you arrogant SOB.

    David Farrar, you ignorant slut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

  35. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    gorefan: Apparently, the people of Massachusetts were not familar with American History:

    You would think that US History would have been easier for them since there was substantially less history to learn.

  36. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 12, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    David Farrar:

    State Constitutions used the term “natural born subject” after 1776:

    1786 Vermont Constitution

    XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence. (emphasis added)

    1776 Pennsylvania Constitution

    SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.
    (emphasis added)

    See also the 1778 Constitution of the State of Maryland (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State.”); 1776 Constitution of the State of Delaware (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State”)

  37. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Priceless.

    For everything else, there’s Master Card™.

  38. avatar
    David Farrar February 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    gorefan: David,

    Apparently, the people of Massachusetts were not familar with American History:

    In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

    In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

    In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.

    In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

    In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunitiesof natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

    In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    So sometimes they used NBC and sometimes NBS.

    I am not surprised the judiciary would interchange them. Even today, Anglo-American jurisprudence hasn’t fully come to terms with the American revolution, as this natural born Citizen issue shows us.

    I am quite sure if the question was put before the electorate whether you want a two-parent citizenship rule for natural born Citizen or a resident alien rule, their answer would be a forgone conclusion.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  39. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    John Potter: Anytime the Constitution is presented as an impenetrable legal barrier, as though all legal events should be thought of as Before Constitution and After Ratification, you can assume the claim is crap. It was a reboot of the collective organization of the states, nothing smaller.

    For all their professed love for what they think the Constitution means1, I wonder how many would have been on the anti-federalist side, opposing the Constitution, during the ratification votes. It would probably have been some great, grand conspiracy to them.

    1Note: The Onion has an article “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”

  40. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    David Farrar: their answer would be a forgone conclusion.

    Only if I can get it wholesale.

  41. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    David Farrar: I am quite sure if the question was put before the electorate whether you want a two-parent citizenship rule for natural born Citizen or a resident alien rule, their answer would be a forgone conclusion.

    Didn’t seem to bother 52% of the voters in 2008 (that would be over 69 million). It appears you are not entirely aware of wishes of the electorate. This country is slightly larger that a town in Georgia.

  42. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Northland10: The Onion has an article “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”

    Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

  43. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    “a forgone conclusion”

    69,456,897 Americans, the majority, voted for a man with a Kenyan father, a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, for the office of President of the United States in 2008.

    I am quite sure the Will of the Majority spoke clearly and decisively.

  44. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

    Northland10: Didn’t seem to bother 52% of the voters in 2008(that would be over 69 million).It appears you are not entirely aware of wishes of the electorate.This country is slightly larger that a town in Georgia.

    Some people imagine Cedartown (population of ~ 9750) to be a bit bigger in their fantasies.

  45. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    Majority Will: Some people imagine Cedartown (population of ~ 9750) to be a bit bigger in their fantasies.

    Yeah, but how many dogs? Paul Rolf Jensen wants to know.

  46. avatar
    yutube February 12, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    Wow so many attorneys here, must be an honor. But I’m wondering if Leo brought this up, why dont they [lawyers] post the same responses in Leo’s blog and show the credentials? I really don’t know why is it so difficult really.

  47. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    yutube: Wow so many attorneys here, must be an honor. But I’m wondering if Leo brought this up, why dont they [lawyers] post the same responses in Leo’s blog and show the credentials? I really don’t know why is it so difficult really.

    Perhaps if Leo, the party making the assertion goes first? I have not seen his credentials. As for myself, you’ll just have to take my word that my IANAL license is squared away and up-to-date.

  48. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    David Farrar: I am not surprised the judiciary would interchange them

    No, David this was the Massachusetts legislature, not the judiciary.

    The people of Massachusetts understood NBC to be the same as NBS. It is really that simple.

  49. avatar
    David Farrar February 12, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Scientist:
    David Farrar, you arrogant SOB.What right do you have to impose your view on the rest of the good people of Georgia?If you don’t like Obama for any reason or no reason at all, you are perfectly free to not vote for him.But, everyone else is entitled to draw their own conclusions even if they differ with the great all-knowing “ex`animo”.Thank goodness the Judge and the SOS, are not falling for your nonsense and will allow each voter to draw their OWN conclusion.

    I have every right to express my views and use what the law has provided as the “proper” avenue to address my concerns. I could, I suppose, go occupy some street corner and yell out point of view.

    But far more importantly, I paid my court fee, so I get to “…impose my view on the rest of Georgia.” If you, too, would like to impose my view on the rest of Georgia; hire a court.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  50. avatar
    David Farrar February 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    gorefan: No, David this was the Massachusetts legislature, not the judiciary.

    The people of Massachusetts understood NBC to be the same as NBS.It is really thatsimple.

    Yes, it was the Legislature, which was probably chock full of lawyers…need I say more?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  51. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    yutube:
    Wow so many attorneys here, must be an honor. But I’m wondering if Leo brought this up, why dont they [lawyers] post the same responses in Leo’s blog and show the credentials? I really don’t know why is it so difficult really.

    Put Leo’s or Mario’s imagined credentials as Constitutional scholars up against retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who wrote:

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    In which Law Journals can we find Leo’s fallacious drivel?

  52. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    David Farrar: need I say more?

    If you had any sense at all, you’d stop babbling laughable nonsense while you’re way, way behind.

    But then . . .

  53. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Atticus Finch: 1786 Vermont Constitution

    The interesting thing about the Vermont Constitution is that Section XXXVII1 in the 1777 version says this:

    “Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land, or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof and be entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.”

    Then in 1786 they rewrote Section XXXVIII and it became Section XXXVI;

    “Every [foreigner] person, of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen [of this State;] thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected governor, lieutenant-governor, treasurer, councillor, or representative in assembly, until after two years residence.”

    So they rewrote the section, changed the offices that the naturalized citizen was eligible for but left in the term “natural born subject”. Obviously it wasn’t a pressing concern for them.

  54. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    David Farrar: Yes, it was the Legislature, which was probably chock full of lawyers

    Maybe so but they would understand the legal terms used at the time. Whereas you, not so much.

  55. avatar
    yutube February 12, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    John, he did show his credentials, its in bold letters right in his blog’s rules for comment. If I were you I would humiliate him in public at his own blog imagine that, and if he doesn’t post your comment well it’s very easy to prove that here in this blog anyway. I mean, you’re posting on a blog already for goodness sakes, just a copy paste doesn’t hurt.

  56. avatar
    yutube February 12, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    Majority, I have no idea what the hell your reply had to do with anything I said.

  57. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    David Farrar: which was probably chock full of lawyers

    Wow, what a statement.

    The Constitutional Convention consisted of over 60% lawyers or members who had studied the law. Are you saying they got it wrong?

    Benedict Arnold has nothing on you.

  58. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    yutube: Majority, I have no idea what the hell your reply had to do with anything I said.

    Hey yutube, I found your photograph: http://www.ricklatona.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/picresized_1229584137_youreadog1.gif

  59. avatar
    John Potter February 12, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    yutube:
    John, he did show his credentials, its in bold letters right in his blog’s rules for comment. If I were you I would humiliate him in public at his own blog imagine that, and if he doesn’t post your comment well it’s very easy to prove that here in this blog anyway. I mean, you’re posting on a blog already for goodness sakes, just a copy paste doesn’t hurt.

    No, Yutube, he typed what he asserts his credentials to be. And then explained that he is creating his own fantasy legal authority.

  60. avatar
    yutube February 12, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    “to post here [at Leo's blog] you must be licensed to practice law. State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in. NO EXCEPTIONS.”

    Name and jurisdiction, that’s it? It’s been what 3 months and no comments from attorneys humiliating this guy yet?

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    And how do you, a non-lawyer, know that Ley and Mario aren’t just blowing smoke and fooling you? Certainly US District Judge Gibney, Georgia judge Malihi and three appellate judges in Indiana seem to think they are.

    John: I love how John Woodham claims he is now the scholar on NBC when her not a lawyer and Mario and Leo are and have devoted years of scholarly research to NBC. john Woodman can not even begin to compete with Mario or Leo.

  62. avatar
    yutube February 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    I see, the comfort zone is precious

  63. avatar
    misha February 12, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Certainly US District Judge Gibney, Georgia judge Malihi and three appellate judges in Indiana seem to think they are.

    John and yutube – I suggest you read this:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    Take some time and make sure you know the difference between the the legislature and the judiciary. Those citations are clearly marked legislation.

    So when you say that all of those citations exhibit a “failure to come to terms with the American Revolution” (given the fact that those are Acts of the Massachusetts Legislature) you are actually saying that the Massachusetts legislature in the 18th century failed to understand the American revolution, but you do.

    Even you have to realize how really crazy that sounds.

    David, what you don’t realize (although I’m sure Leo and Mario do) is that essentially the two-citizen parent movement is trying to replace the 18th century American view of citizenship with their own. You’re saying how the Founders “ought” to have understood it, not how they historically understood it. Your strong feeling about how things should have been make it difficult if not impossible for you to approach the historical sources objectively.

    You see, I don’t care whether natural born citizen means born a citizen with or without citizen parents. I can live with it either way. The Constitution is what it is, and if we don’t like it (enough of us) we can change it. Because I don’t care, I can approach the question objectively and weigh all the evidence. It turns out that I and the authorities see it the same way (and not how you see it). You, on the other hand, have a vested interest in the outcome because you want to oust Obama and you want support for a xenophobic world view.

    What you don’t understand is that the Framers are not like you. First, the prime movers in writing the Constitution were lawyers trained in the English Common Law, many actually trained in England. They write in terms defined by the Common Law. What you also do not understand is that the new United States desperately needed immigration and were not infused with the anti-immigrant notions that form your movement. Naturalization was much easier then than it is now.

    David Farrar: I am not surprised the judiciary would interchange them. Even today, Anglo-American jurisprudence hasn’t fully come to terms with the American revolution, as this natural born Citizen issue shows us.

  65. avatar
    John Woodman February 13, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    John: I love how John Woodham claims he is now the scholar on NBC when her not a lawyer and Mario and Leo are and have devoted years of scholarly research to NBC. john Woodman can not even begin to compete with Mario or Leo.

    I’ve been publicly clear and explicit on the FACT that I am not a lawyer. In fact, I was semi-rebuked for it by an actual lawyer, who responded, “I am a lawyer. So what? Your interpretation is correct.”

    I’ve also cited lawyers and known Constitutional scholars who completely contradict the claims of Donofrio and Apuzzo — including one whom Donofrio falsely claimed supported him! See comments on Frederick van Dyne, here.

    If I were to make one single provably false claim, I’ve no doubt you’d be all over that, John. Yet your heros Donofrio and Apuzzo can post all sorts of bogus nonsense, and they get a pass. Why is that? Don’t care much about the actual truth, do you, John?

  66. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 13, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    yutube:
    Wow so many attorneys here, must be an honor. But I’m wondering if Leo brought this up, why dont they [lawyers] post the same responses in Leo’s blog and show the credentials? I really don’t know why is it so difficult really.

    Leo is not worth my time. If he wants to come here to debate us, fine, but he had his ass handed to him last time he ventured outside of his safe little blog where he controls the content.

  67. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    Misha, I found your pic too but unfortunately it’s against the principles of the common law and the nomenclature of which the framers of this blog is familiar with.

  68. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    name and jurisdiction, Georgetown. That’s all. It’s that hard, yea, 3 months.

  69. avatar
    John Woodman February 13, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    John: —-Nice Try Doc, But I invite you to read Minor Vs. Happerset regarding Vice-Chancellor Sanford who appeared to be a recognized AUTHORITY at the time:

    Nothing in your quote referred to the late Vice-Chancellor Sandford. Nothing refuted his clear statement.

    WKA never solved [the doubts mentioned in Minor v. Happersett as it did not proclaim Wong Kim an NBC. The WKA case never claims to solve the question of doubt posed in Minor. The WKA deals with the citizenship under the governoring rule of the 14th Amendment and leaves the original meaning of NBC reached in Minor in tact and undisturbed.

    False. The Court in Wong Kim Ark:

    1) Mentioned that natural born citizenship was a qualification for Presidential eligibility.

    2) Found as an “irresistible” “conclusion” that Wong Kim Ark was “natural” and “natural born.”

    The term “natural born,” by the way, does not derive from any natural law quoted by Vattel — his word, indigenes, was never even translated “natural born citizens” until 10 years after the Presidential eligibility clause was written — but derives from the English (and Biblical) idea that God has instituted a natural order: Individuals are subject to the authorities that God has put in place (kings and governments). Those authorities are subject to God, and owe certain things to those who are subject to them. That’s where the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” derive from, and they were used in the English language and in our legal heritage for literally centuries before the Presidential eligibility clause was drafted.

    3) The Court undeniably found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.

    Given that the Court “irresistibly” “concluded” that Wong Kim Ark was “natural born,” and that they found him to be a “citizen,” there is no other possibility than that they found him to be a natural born citizen. And having discussed the Presidential ramifications, it is clear that — although they didn’t explicitly state this — they also found would be eligible, on reaching age 35 and having lived 14 years in the US, if the people should one day choose to elect him, to become President.

    That’s why it’s “game over” for Donofrio and Apuzzo.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 12:24 am #

    It bears repeating that most of the birther sites moderate all comments. Nothing appears without being first approved by the blog owner. It’s been my experience that a well-reasoned moderately-stated argument that disagrees with the birther position won’t get approved (YMMV).

    I have chosen to ban or moderate certain individuals who were abusive, disruptive or didn’t follow the rules; however, anyone else can come here and say what they want to say and they can disagree with my articles and they can cite their own evidence, and express value judgments that conflict with mine.

    I do that because I want the truth rather than to win. The birthers think they already have the truth, so they find no value in contrary opinions.

    GeorgetownJD: Leo is not worth my time. If he wants to come here to debate us, fine, but he had his ass handed to him last time he ventured outside of his safe little blog where he controls the content.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    You’re making an unwarranted assumption of good faith on the part of the blog owner.

    yutube: name and jurisdiction, Georgetown. That’s all. It’s that hard, yea, 3 months.

  72. avatar
    John Woodman February 13, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You’re making an unwarranted assumption of good faith on the part of the blog owner.

    …who in the past has also, in apparent seriousness, made public claims to personally be “The Paraclete,” the Holy Spirit of God, and that the drummer from his favorite rock band was “The Messiah.”

  73. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 12:38 am #

    You are being a bit presumptious in your deluded and smug self-arrogance to think so. You really need to get out amongst the broader US population and not just surround yourself in such insular groupthink.

    I bet you didn’t see Obama’s election coming before it happened in 2008 either. I bet you were one of those people who thought it could “never happen”. Yet, by a vast majority, the American people chose him.

    So yeah, I’d easily bet you’d be wrong about what the majority would decide in this situation too. Sorry, but whether you like how the US laws work or not, they are our laws. If you don’t like it, you need to convince your congressional representatives to push for a Constitutional Amendment to restrict citizenship to your desired classifcation.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    David Farrar: I am quite sure if the question was put before the electorate whether you want a two-parent citizenship rule for natural born Citizen or a resident alien rule, their answer would be a forgone conclusion.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    I might wish you didn’t so what you did, but I will defend your right to do it.

    However, there are ethical considerations too. Would it be a good thing if everybody did what you did? If we had 10 million lawsuits filed? You might find that a silly example, but birthers have filed over 100 lawsuits, and they are actively campaigning to file ballot challenges in every state, even though they have lost all the ones decided so far. At some one point, the question has to be asked whether it is moral to keep beating a dead horse.

    David Farrar: I have every right to express my views and use what the law has provided as the “proper” avenue to address my concerns. I could, I suppose, go occupy some street corner and yell out point of view.

  75. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It bears repeating that most of the birther sites moderate all comments. Nothing appears without being first approved by the blog owner. It’s been my experience that a well-reasoned moderately-stated argument that disagrees with the birther position won’t get approved (YMMV).

    I have chosen to ban or moderate certain individuals who were abusive, disruptive or didn’t follow the rules; however, anyone else can come here and say what they want to say and they can disagree with my articles and they can cite their own evidence, and express value judgments that conflict with mine.

    I do that because I want the truth rather than to win. The birthers think they already have the truth, so they find no value in contrary opinions.

    why deny this brilliant opportunity to humiliate the “God” of all birthers at his own blog? Or forget about humiliation, don’t we all want the truth if it’s not about winning?

  76. avatar
    JoZeppy February 13, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    yutube:
    “to post here [at Leo's blog] you must be licensed to practice law. State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in. NO EXCEPTIONS.”

    Name and jurisdiction, that’s it? It’s been what 3 months and no comments from attorneys humiliating this guy yet?

    I don’t know if you noticed, but birthers are a vindictive bunch. Last thing I want is an army of nutters, harassing me at work, my firm, or my clients, so no thank you. And most of all, why would I enter a debate with someone who has an established history of moderating comments critial of b.s.?

    And I don’t know if you noticed, but the courts have done a decent job of humiliating him directly, and have rejected his arguments every time they have been presented….in fact Mario was nearly sanctioned for his arguments.

  77. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    One of my favorite of The Onion’s satire… and a perfect example of Poe’s Law in effect.

    The sad truth is that this country is full of people who seriously think just like that…

    misha: Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Behttp://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    I’ve been to Leo’s blog and I can tell you first hand that he won’t publish a telling argument against him.

    Been there, done that.

    yutube: why deny this brilliant opportunity to humiliate the “God” of all birthers at his own blog?

  79. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    It sure is for you Birthers. Funny how every encounter and effort that you have to conduct in the real world turns out to be an utter failure for you…. get a clue.

    yutube: I see, the comfort zone is precious

  80. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 12:49 am #

    Well said, Doc! Well said! I’m 100% in agreement with every point of your post here.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I might wish you didn’t so what you did, but I will defend your right to do it.However, there are ethical considerations too. Would it be a good thing if everybody did what you did? If we had 10 million lawsuits filed? You might find that a silly example, but birthers have filed over 100 lawsuits, and they are actively campaigning to file ballot challenges in every state, even though they have lost all the ones decided so far. At some one point, the question has to be asked whether it is moral to keep beating a dead horse.

  81. avatar
    JoZeppy February 13, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    yutube: why deny this brilliant opportunity to humiliate the “God” of all birthers at his own blog? Or forget about humiliation, don’t we all want the truth if it’s not about winning?

    Again, you assume that he would permit a full open debate….his history points to the opposite. And again, the courts are doing a fine job of humiliating Mario, and he did just as fine a job humilating himself when he appeared here.

    If Mario was serious about his arguments, why doesn’t he publish them in a law journal, like every real legal scholar? Do you think maybe it might have to do with the fact that he realizes he’s just slinging b.s. that the legal community would find laughable?

  82. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You’re making an unwarranted assumption of good faith on the part of the blog owner.

    Dr. we all know that there are no warranties on an online debate but I understand that public humiliation is a serious career blow for lawyers and I think that this is the main reason that attorneys in your blog have rejected Leo’s proposal. I think it’s time for them to step up to the plate at the big show. Minor league does not pay well.

  83. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    JoZeppy: Again, you assume that he would permit a full open debate….his history points to the opposite.And again, the courts are doing a fine job of humiliating Mario, and he did just as fine a job humilating himself when he appeared here.

    If Mario was serious about his arguments, why doesn’t he publish them in a law journal, like every real legal scholar?Do you think maybe it might have to do with the fact that he realizes he’s just slinging b.s. that the legal community would find laughable?

    Joseppy, I know you would say the same, but I’m not talking about Mario.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    Savvy attorneys apply the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique ®, which has proven a highly-effective and low cost method of winning against crazies. Donofrio claims that his multi-hundred page amicus brief is part of the record in the Georgia cases, but Jablonski still won using the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique®. If memory serves me right, Obama’s attorney’s in Illinois used a slightly different technique, simply saying that the argument is based on an incorrect legal theory. That’s the One-sentence Stating the Obvious Technique™. I believe Donofrio’s tome was in play there.

    Besides, I’d rather humiliate him over here. It’s good for traffic.

    yutube: Name and jurisdiction, that’s it? It’s been what 3 months and no comments from attorneys humiliating this guy yet?

  85. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    Look, you’re calling him a “God”, not us. I’m sure the ego’s of Apuzzo, Orly, Berg, Haskins, Kreep, etc. would all dispute Leo being given such a prominent role over themselves by you as well… especially Orly.

    These folks might be a bunch of two-bit wannabe Cult Leaders, but they certainly are not “Gods”…

    But to get back to your main argument – again, you fail to take 2 critical things into account:

    1 – As others have already pointed out – his blog is heavily moderated and his fragile ego has an established past history of not allowing posts that disagree with him or make him look bad. You simply assume that his carefully moderated blog lacks objections from actual lawyers, because none are displayed. The very lack of them could also be attributed to Leo not actually posting any disputes from real laywers either. Leo doesn’t seem to handle criticism too well at all.

    2 – The true test is in the real world – and we’ve seen the results repeatedly. The Birthers lose at every turn. Leo and Mario have had their FAIL attempts in court. Leo’s latest 200+ omnibus screed has been submitted to both GA & IL. …And what did the courts do? They ruled in favor of the legal interpretation of WKA and Ankeny and therefore against the pseudo-law bogus arguments of the likes of Leo and Mario.

    Sorry, but you are just a gullible follower who has been easily snookered by these second-rate clowns and their pseudo-law mumbo jumbo. If you were capable of grasping reality, you might get a clue that they fail everytime their arguments come up in a real court of law.

    yutube: why deny this brilliant opportunity to humiliate the “God” of all birthers at his own blog? Or forget about humiliation, don’t we all want the truth if it’s not about winning?

  86. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’ve been to Leo’s blog and I can tell you first hand that he won’t publish a telling argument against him.

    Been there, done that.

    Not you Dr. the attorneys.

  87. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:02 am #

    G:
    Look, you’re calling him a “God”, not us.I’m sure the ego’s of Apuzzo, Orly, Berg, Haskins, Kreep, etc. would all dispute Leo being given such a prominent role over themselves by you as well… especially Orly.

    These folks might be a bunch of two-bit wannabe Cult Leaders, but they certainly are not “Gods”…

    But to get back to your main argument – again, you fail to take 2 critical things into account:

    1 – As others have already pointed out – his blog is heavily moderated and his fragile ego has an established past history of not allowing posts that disagree with him or make him look bad.You simply assume that his carefully moderated blog lacks objections from actual lawyers, because none are displayed.The very lack of them could also be attributed to Leo not actually posting any disputes from real laywers either.Leo doesn’t seem to handle criticism too well at all.

    2 – The true test is in the real world – and we’ve seen the results repeatedly.The Birthers lose at every turn.Leo and Mario have had their FAIL attempts in court.Leo’s latest 200+ omnibus screed has been submitted to both GA & IL.…And what did the courts do?They ruled in favor of the legal interpretation of WKA and Ankeny and therefore against the pseudo-law bogus arguments of the likes of Leo and Mario.

    Sorry, but you are just a gullible follower who has been easily snookered by these second-rate clowns and their pseudo-law mumbo jumbo.If you were capable of grasping reality, you might get a clue that they fail everytime their arguments come up in a real court of law.

    Dude, I quoted the word “God”, meaning, it wasn’t from me. It was in one of the Dr’s article, I think.

  88. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:04 am #

    I think you need to direct that argument to Mario and Leo. No lawyer here is trying to push Birther cases onto the courts, so your argument utterly fails to make any sense there.

    Mario hasn’t been back in court since he got his @ss handed to him the last time he tried and failed with this nonsense. He lost badly. So did Leo.

    Yet…in the year where there are all these “new” ballot challenges…where are the ever bloviating Mario and Leo in terms of fighting these battles in hearings or before the courts anymore? .

    Nowhere. Because deep down inside, they know darn well they are pulling a flim-flam scam and that they can’t get away with it in a real court system. Call out your own chicken-sh*t heroes to come riding to the Birther rescue next time…

    yutube: Dr. we all know that there are no warranties on an online debate but I understand that public humiliation is a serious career blow for lawyers and I think that this is the main reason that attorneys in your blog have rejected Leo’s proposal. I think it’s time for them to step up to the plate at the big show. Minor league does not pay well.

  89. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    If that is the case, then provide the link and context and I’ll believe you. “you think” is simply not good enough…and you so far lack the credibility to be taken seriously.

    My points still stand, regardless.

    yutube: Dude, I quoted the word “God”, meaning, it wasn’t from me. It was in one of the Dr’s article, I think.

  90. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Savvy attorneys apply the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique , which has proven a highly-effective and low cost method of winning against crazies. Donofrio claims that his multi-hundred page amicus brief is part of the record in the Georgia cases, butJablonski still won using the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique. If memory serves me right, Obama’s attorney’s in Illinois used a slightly different technique, simply saying that the argument is based on an incorrect legal theory. That’s the One-sentence Stating the Obvious Technique &8482; I believe Donofrio’s tome was in play there.

    Besides, I’d rather humiliate him over here. It’s good for traffic.

    That I am sure the Jablonski Emtpy Chair technique is nothing new. It has always been used by savviest criminals. I remember my best defense against having to take a final exam was to not show up at all and then pretend I was sick the next 2 days. I see we can do the same with the court system now, well, at least in Georgia hearings.

    Hey, but I do get your point about traffic, that’s what matters; so much for the truth, oh well.

  91. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:21 am #

    Yet, the truth doesn’t seem to matter to you delusional Birthers whenever the courts or other government officials give you their official answers….

    Truth doesn’t seem to be a concept that you actually understand…

    yutube: so much for the truth, oh well

  92. avatar
    David February 13, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    Leo may not be much of a lawyer, but that “Dream of the Portugal Keeper” song is kind of catchy.

  93. avatar
    John Potter February 13, 2012 at 1:31 am #

    yutube: I remember my best defense against having to take a final exam was to not show up at all and then pretend I was sick the next 2 days.

    Well, yutube, you may have run and hid from your big scary finals; meanwhile the President was on the job, going about his duties, as well documented by the media; unlike a cowering college yutube, he was easily findable, and honest about his whereabouts. His presence was not required to defend against the frivolous lawsuit …. a lawsuit so frivolous, it lost to a table. So blunt, it couldn’t pierce silence. Too dumb to accept a forfeit.

  94. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    G:
    If that is the case, then provide the link and context and I’ll believe you.“you think” is simply not good enough…and you so far lack the credibility to be taken seriously.

    My points still stand, regardless.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-apuzzo/
    ‘the spiritual father”? It still the same idea

  95. avatar
    John Potter February 13, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    …. a lawsuit which incorporated Donofrio’s crank scribblings. You were saying about humiliation and legal careers? Hope that poker thing is working out.

  96. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    You FAIL again on two levels:

    First of all, the actual quote is:

    Pope Leo Donofrio is the spiritual father of this group

    Sorry, but the Pope is *not* “God”… so your confusing “spirtual father” for that fails even within the very direct context of the very sentence the term is used.

    Second, that entire blog post is intentional satirical metaphor.

    If you can’t comprehend such concepts and are really so dense as to so badly misconstrue context, then I can’t help you.

    yutube: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-apuzzo/the spiritual father”? It still the same idea

  97. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am #

    John Potter: Well, yutube, you may have run and hid from your big scary finals; meanwhile the President was on the job, going about his duties, as well documented by the media; unlike a cowering college yutube, he was easily findable, and honest about his whereabouts. His presence was not required to defend against the frivolous lawsuit …. a lawsuit so frivolous, it lost to a table. So blunt, it couldn’t pierce silence. Too dumb to accept a forfeit.

    oh a lawsuit so frivolous that motion to quash was denied. I made up the exam, that’s a strategy. But I see you have no strategy but to hide your license behind a conspiracy blog? At least Jablonski had a name.

  98. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    G:
    You FAIL again on two levels:

    First of all, the actual quote is:

    Sorry, but the Pope is *not* “God”… so your confusing “spirtual father” for that fails even within the very direct context of the very sentence the term is used.

    Second, that entire blog post is intentional satirical metaphor.

    If you can’t comprehend such concepts and are really so dense as to so badly misconstrue context, then I can’t help you.

    I can’t believe you debate the stupidest little details that makes no sense whatsoever on the main subject

  99. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:44 am #

    You seem to fail to grasp the entire point of this site. We simply monitor, debunk and report on your crazy conspiracies and myths. You dimwit tools are creating all this nonsense. All these frivolous attempts are initiated by ONLY one side – yours.

    There is simply nothing we need to do except sit back, comment, analyze and laugh.

    yutube: oh a lawsuit so frivolous that motion to quash was denied. I made up the exam, that’s a strategy. But I see you have no strategy but to hide your license behind a conspiracy blog? At least Jablonski had a name.

  100. avatar
    John Potter February 13, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    yutube: oh a lawsuit so frivolous that motion to quash was denied. I made up the exam, that’s a strategy. But I see you have no strategy but to hide your license behind a conspiracy blog? At least Jablonski had a name.

    John Potter is my name! LOL! What license am I supposed to be hiding? My IANAL?

  101. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:46 am #

    Ah, because you are caught again making up and trying to spread nonsense, now you simply retreat to infantile defensiveness…

    In my original reply, I also took on all of your “arguments” and took them down too. Yet you’ve “conveniently” failed to follow up on those points as well…

    Why, because you don’t have a leg to stand on in anything you say, do you?…

    yutube: I can’t believe you debate the stupidest little details that makes no sense whatsoever on the main subject

  102. avatar
    Whatever4 February 13, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    yutube:
    name and jurisdiction, Georgetown. That’s all. It’s that hard, yea, 3 months.

    You really expect anyone to put their real names forward? Some of the “eligibility deniers” have been known to harass the workplaces of anti-birthers by trying to get them fired or plaster their personal information all over the internet. I know one who had her car keyed in a way that made it obvious a birther was involved. There’s certainly a lot of anger out there and there’s also crazy people looking for scapegoats. Leo and Mario’s names are public as they filed lawsuits.

    Besides — Leo and Mario don’t run forums for open debate. There’s a better-than-even chance that a well-crafted on-point post won’t get posted. NO ONE wants to debate in such a forum because that’s not a debate.

  103. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 13, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    All this babble about the Parrakeet’s blog is demonstrating even more clearly how the birfoon “lawyers” are exactly like all the other cranks and kooks in every field of knowledge: claiming victory because the real authorities don’t bother debating them is yet another common feature.

  104. avatar
    John Potter February 13, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    Whatever4: You really expect anyone to put their real names forward?

    Apparently not as he goes by “yutube”! And failed to see the irony of a pseudonym accusing accusing me (a fool who is out in the open) of hiding behind a pseudonym. I was really looking forward to his response there …. got to get my IANAL framed for presentation, too! ;)

  105. avatar
    Whatever4 February 13, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    yutube: I can’t believe you debate the stupidest little details that makes no sense whatsoever on the main subject

    &%$#, lost another irony meter.

  106. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 13, 2012 at 4:26 am #

    JoZeppy: Perhaps if Leo spent more time practicing law rather than playing poker he might actually remember things correctly.

    Oh, but there you are forgetting that he also plays chess, has a band that he wants to revive and dabbles at being Jesus Christ Re-incarnated and Copyrighted.

    Just for starters: a real tournament chess player will devote two hours of analysis per hour of actual chess palying. An average chess match takes four hours of play, an average Swiss system tournament lasts for nine rounds (for obvious reasons, there is normelly only one round a day) and Leo plays 4 tournaments a year – actually he tries to play four a year, he usually retires before the fourth round (so that his minus points do not count for his no doubt now rather inflated rating.

    There is a word for people dabbling at law, at chess, at music and at saving the world from sin in general (I will leave the poker out for a moment, since it seems to provide him with some income):

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kibitzing

  107. avatar
    sunkawakan February 13, 2012 at 6:05 am #

    It’s a shame that Georgia repealed their law for barratry in 2006.

  108. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    David Farrar: I am quite sure if the question was put before the electorate whether you want a two-parent citizenship rule for natural born Citizen or a resident alien rule, their answer would be a forgone conclusion

    I agree it would be a foregone conclusion. In fact, let’s try this: let’s have a candidate with a non-citizen father run for President. And let’s have him be really open about it. He could mention his father in speeches. Heck, let’s make this really rigorous-what if he wrote a book about his father? And if this candidate got elected with, say, 53% of the popular vote, and won some states that no one in his party had won in decades, that ought to settle the matter for all time.

    And anyone bringing up a supposed “rule” 4 years later that they never mentioned the first time would be a sore loser, wouldn’t they?

  109. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2012 at 6:40 am #

    David Farrar: I have every right to express my views and use what the law has provided as the “proper” avenue to address my concerns. I could, I suppose, go occupy some street corner and yell out point of view

    Of course you have the right to express your views. However, the courts are not political platforms and to attempt to make them into such is an abuse. Go picket Obama headquarters; I would have no problem with that.

    Those who demonstrate peacefully in support of a political cause are worthy of respect; those who try to subvert the courts to deny their fellow citizens ballot choices are not.

    For 3 years now, I have heard from you and your pals about how Obama is such a terrible President, yet you are afraid to take him on in an election.

    Here you are, David http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqYbziGz-n4

  110. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 13, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    yutube: I can’t believe you debate the stupidest little details that makes no sense whatsoever on the main subject

    Good grief, you are the one who called him God, pretending that Dr C had done so. You do not seem to know that Leo has in the past claimed to be the Paraclete, the comforter. After Jesus Christ, the original Paraclete, mounted to heaven, he was replaced by “another Paraclete”, the Holy Spirit (though Islam believes Christ was really predicting the Prophet Mohammed).

    Just like inviting the lawyers here to particpate in a debate on Leo’s blog – either you are very new to this debate, or you are pretending to be.

  111. avatar
    Greenfinches February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am #

    would it confuse birfers to note that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom? I may have a Queen as head of state, but here I am a citizen!

    I used to be a British Subject, and I didn’t notice when this changed. Nobody told me, and I haven’t noticed any impact at all on my daily life……….

    Maybe it makes no difference??????

    gorefan: a subject instead of a citizen.

  112. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    Leo’s New Blog Title:

    “I can’t believe I debate the stupidest little details that make no sense whatsoever on the main subject.”

  113. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    yutube:
    Majority, I have no idea what the hell your reply had to do with anything I said.

    Are you really obtuse or is it just a silly, annoying act?

    Could it be both?

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    Let me ask you this: how do you know that 117 attorneys have not shown up to debate Leo on his blog? You only have his word to explain the empty replies.

    I was there before the time he decided to excuse his unwillingness to debate by reducing the number of potential debaters. He censored me when I proved him wrong (he had made the very embarrassing mistake of trying to argue that Obama was still a British citizen by citing a law that had been repealed).

    yutube: Not you Dr. the attorneys.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 7:53 am #

    That was a comment worthy of Mario Apuzzo.

    yutube: Hey, but I do get your point about traffic, that’s what matters; so much for the truth, oh well.

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    Given that the last time someone with a non-citizen parent ran for President against a two-citizen parent candidate, he won suggests to me that it is a foregone conclusion that they do not prefer a two-parent citizenship rule.

    David Farrar: I am quite sure if the question was put before the electorate whether you want a two-parent citizenship rule for natural born Citizen or a resident alien rule, their answer would be a forgone conclusion.

  117. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Given that the last time someone with a non-citizen parent ran for President against a two-citizen parent candidate, he won suggests to me that it is a foregone conclusion that they do not prefer a two-parent citizenship rule.

    Not only that, but the voters seem to be leaning towards approving of and likely re-electing that same guy with a non-citizen parent. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/long-time-coming-obamas-approval-rating-goes-positive.php

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    You can “think” all you want, but I offer proof. See “Update 2″ to the article above.

    yutube: Dr. we all know that there are no warranties on an online debate but I understand that public humiliation is a serious career blow for lawyers and I think that this is the main reason that attorneys in your blog have rejected Leo’s proposal.

  119. avatar
    John February 13, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    For Update 2 – What posting did you put the comment under? You seem to have truncated Leo’s response, so your response has little merit because there is not enough context to weigh your conclusion. In any event, you are classic for nitpicking a single sentence out of posting of 10,000 and saying that one sentence refutes the entire argument when it does no such thing.

  120. avatar
    Tarrant February 13, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    Public humiliation at the hands of a birther on a hyper-moderated blog isn’t exactly very public. It’s like saying someone should debate you but only if you get a special button that can mute their microphone if they say something you don’t like. If Leo wanted honest, public debate he could do it at someplace third-party where he doesn’t control every comment and can’t prevent counter-arguments from being posted. Perhaps you should suggest that to him, yutube.

    That said, Leo reminds me of people I would see back when I would go to arcades and play games like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. The ones that would sit by the machine and criticize your choice of character, would tell you that suchandsuch character is better than the one you chose, that they have done all the analysis on how to beat this boss, and that they were so much better than you were at the game and they could kick your ass…all the while always finding an excuse to not actually play the game. They’re out of money, they can’t go to suchandsuch tournament because they aren’t around that day, what have you.

    If Leo wants to claim that he has all the answers and he’s the awesomest, rather that tell people how good his arguments are, perhaps he should try actually putting some quarters into the machine – he can stand up in court and make the argument. Last time he did that, he lost – badly. And he’s never tried again. And no matter how much he may say they got it wrong (“I was off my form that day! You were being cheap and using (that character!) Hey, no using throws!”) he still lost, took his quarters, and left the arcade, vowing that he was still the best, but that nobody would ever be able to see him play again…but psst, he’s still better than you.

    I’m sure everyone knows one of “those people” (I see it at work with people who claim to love and be great at golf but never want to play it with anybody that might tell others how they did). Leo is one, and until he decides to actually publish his legal buffoonery, or head to court and make his argument rather than have others make it for him (after all, while saying that courts are getting it wrong, he also has no problem saying that the lawyers making his arguments aren’t making them properly and that’s another reason they’re losing – why not get around that by making them himself?), he can be, and should be, ignored.

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    I never claimed to have refuted the “entire argument.” I just demonstrated that Leo won’t acknowledge when people prove him wrong, even on a minor point. It wasn’t “Leo’s response;” it was Leo’s article. He never responded or acknowledged my criticism. To this day that false statement from Leo is still on his blog, there to mislead trusting fools. He knows that it is false because I left my comment that he sees, whether he publishes it or not.

    Even the brief citation in my comment I made contains enough context to prove that Leo was wrong and frankly your contextual hold out is frivolous. I think you should get a Google for your web browser so you can find things on the Internet for yourself.

    Here’s where my remark was posted:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

    John:
    For Update 2 – What posting did you put the comment under? You seem to have truncated Leo’s response, so your response has little merit because there is not enough context to weigh your conclusion.In any event, you are classic for nitpicking a single sentence out of posting of 10,000 and saying that one sentence refutes the entire argument when it does no such thing.

  122. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Tarrant: I’m sure everyone knows one of “those people” (I see it at work with people who claim to love and be great at golf but never want to play it with anybody that might tell others how they did). Leo is one, and until he decides to actually publish his legal buffoonery, or head to court and make his argument rather than have others make it for him (after all, while saying that courts are getting it wrong, he also has no problem saying that the lawyers making his arguments aren’t making them properly and that’s another reason they’re losing – why not get around that by making them himself?), he can be, and should be, ignored.

    Although it might be the easier route, neither Mario nor Leo want their fallacies and scams exposed and destroyed by peer review in a Law Journal.

  123. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 13, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    All of the attorneys here are familiar with opponents who develop a case strategy by cobbling together bits and pieces from different court opinions into the semblance of an argument. I’ve done it myself and sometimes I even get close to believing it! You get enchanted by the elegance of your construction and by examining each link in the chain think you have constructed an an irrefutable connection between one point and another. I completely understand Donofrio’s arguments. He cannot see that they are wrong because he has become enamored with his own work – either that or he knows it is wrong but persists anyway – but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    As far as debating him there really is nothing to debate. That is why so many of these decisions have and will come down to a couple of sentences. There are only two types of citizens defined by the Constitution; those by birth and those by naturalization. Citizens by birth are natural born citizens and all others are naturalized citizens. It really is as simple as that so, point being made, there is nothing to debate.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    Apart from the Internet, I don’t think I have ever associated with anyone like that.

    Tarrant: I’m sure everyone knows one of “those people”

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    Your sycophantic defense of Donofrio is pathetic.

    John: so your response has little merit because there is not enough context to weigh your conclusion.

  126. avatar
    JoZeppy February 13, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    yutube: Joseppy, I know you would say the same, but I’m not talking about Mario.

    My mistake…you are correct…I would say the same…except that as far as I know Leo was not threatened with sanctions.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    I also prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Donofrio might have fit your description at the beginning; however, Donofrio won’t acknowledge when he makes a factual error, like calling a concurring opinion a majority opinion. Someone who deludes himself still must accurately cite sources, even if he strings them together weakly. On the other hand, someone who is dishonest can say anything he wants in his own house without fear of contradiction.

    Zachary Bravos: He cannot see that they are wrong because he has become enamored with his own work – either that or he knows it is wrong but persists anyway – but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  128. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Loren at The Fogbow found this interview with Leo on BlogTalk radio from 2008. It gives quite an insight into how manic Leo was then and probably still is today.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avaindiana/2008/11/24/what-was-our-forefather-intent-requiring-only-natural-born-citizen-could-become-president-

  129. avatar
    JoZeppy February 13, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    yutube: Dr. we all know that there are no warranties on an online debate but I understand that public humiliation is a serious career blow for lawyers and I think that this is the main reason that attorneys in your blog have rejected Leo’s proposal. I think it’s time for them to step up to the plate at the big show. Minor league does not pay well.

    And it seems as with most of your beliefs, you’d be 100% wrong. There are no warranties on an online debate, but when the person debating controlls the forum, and has a record of doing anythig but an honest debate, why would you trust him to be honest in this instance. And again, birthers have a track record of harassing those they deem as the enemy. Sorry, but my job, clients, and family are not going to be targets of birthers.

    And how exactly do we have to worry about humiliation from Leo. Every court that has heard the 2 parent claim has completely rejected it. And not only rejected, but called it frivolous, without merit, and every other possible smack down you can imagine. How can anything we have to offer compare to the humiliation that the courts have inflicted on him?

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Thanks, RC. I added the link to my article.

    Reality Check: Loren at The Fogbow found this interview with Leo on BlogTalk radio from 2008

  131. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    I enjoyed reading your post Tarrant, and I thought your analogy was both funny and apt. Your description of the video game kibitzer who never has the guts to play in public, reminded me of a video of Eric Clapton describing how difficult it was to reproduce the complex rhythms of Robert Johnson’s playing, to which some anonymous Youtube blowhard wrote, “Clapton doesn’t know what he’s talking about. You just got to practice it. I play that sh#t all the time.”

    Tarrant: That said, Leo reminds me of people I would see back when I would go to arcades and play games like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. The ones that would sit by the machine and criticize your choice of character, would tell you that suchandsuch character is better than the one you chose, that they have done all the analysis on how to beat this boss, and that they were so much better than you were at the game and they could kick your ass…all the while always finding an excuse to not actually play the game. They’re out of money, they can’t go to suchandsuch tournament because they aren’t around that day, what have you.

  132. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    I was about to say, “what law review would publish junk like that?” But then there is Herb Titus’ old school, Oral Roberts University Law School or perhaps Liberty University Law School, and then I wondered if William Howard Taft Law School publishes a law review (I don’t think so).

    Majority Will: Although it might be the easier route, neither Mario nor Leo want their fallacies and scams exposed and destroyed by peer review in a Law Journal.

  133. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was about to say, “what law review would publish junk like that?” But then there is Herb Titus’ old school, Oral Roberts University Law School or perhaps Liberty University Law School, and then I wondered if William Howard Taft Law School publishes a law review (I don’t think so).

    Hmmm. Interesting point. Just like we’ll never see Leo’s or Mario’s censored and deleted posts pointing out blatant errors, lies and logical refutation, we’ll never see their law review rejection letters that begin with:

    “You have got to be F$C&I@# kidding submitting this dreck for consideration.”

  134. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 13, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    You all should cut Orly some slack; the empty chair was better prepared and articulated.

    analogy test:

    attorney Orly: empty chair
    a. Titanic: iceberg
    b. raw meat: meat grinder
    c. snowball: hell
    d. paper: shredder
    e. All of the above

  135. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am(Quote) #
    I never claimed to have refuted the “entire argument.” I just demonstrated that Leo won’t acknowledge when people prove him wrong, even on a minor point. It wasn’t “Leo’s response;” it was Leo’s article. He never responded or acknowledged my criticism.

    That’s their MO it seems. MichaelN and David Farrar have been doing the to me; utterly ignoring anything they have no answer for (and cannot retort because it is fact), and weakly attempting to refute one point in my argument. Oh, and of course the usual condescension and haughty dismissive bullguano.

  136. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Atticus Finch:
    You all should cut Orly some slack; the empty chair was better prepared and articulated.

    analogy test:

    attorney Orly: empty chair
    a. Titanic: iceberg
    b. raw meat: meat grinder
    c. snowball: hell
    d. paper: shredder
    e. All of the above

    I say “a.” Raw meat, a snowball, and paper could all be useful. The Titanic sank because they thought it unsinkable. And Orly doesn’t have enough lifeboats for all the unsuspecting victims she’s taking down with her.

  137. avatar
    JoZeppy February 13, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I was about to say, “what law review would publish junk like that?” But then there is Herb Titus’ old school, Oral Roberts University Law School or perhaps Liberty University Law School, and then I wondered if William Howard Taft Law School publishes a law review (I don’t think so).

    I doubt even those would publish it. Liberty University/ORU are still somewhat law students, that will take their jobs on a subject like this seriously enough to toss it in the circular file. Herb Titus had the pull of being a former dean of the school so even the most silly garbage he came up with would get preferential treatment. Mario and Leo are no-name grifters whose CVs would not help them. Additionally, Titus’ publications were all of a religious bent, which again would get special attention at an ORU/Liberty. Leo and Mario junk law theories are all based on a secular Swiss/Prussian philosopher. So the odds of Mario or Leo publishing their garbage are slim to none. Which is probably why they don’t even submit the stuff to a journal. Save face from being rejected by every journal in the US.

  138. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Atticus Finch: analogy test:
    attorney Orly: empty chair
    a. Titanic: iceberg
    b. raw meat: meat grinder
    c. snowball: hell
    d. paper: shredder
    e. All of the above

    Don’t keep us all on tenterhooks, Atticus! What’s the answer?

  139. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    I think that for every lawsuit, Orly should be replaced by a tropical fish aquarium.

    It would be more beautiful, more relaxing, more ecological, less costly and would achieve exactly the same legal results.

  140. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Majority Will: we’ll never see their law review rejection letters that begin with:
    “You have got to be F$C&I@# kidding submitting this dreck for consideration.”

    Reminds me of a college friend who was applying to a Ph.D. program at the University of Michigan. He was invited to the campus for an interview, but when he sat down to speak to the Dean of the program he was told, “There appears to be some mistake; we have already rejected you!”

  141. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Lupin: think that for every lawsuit, Orly should be replaced by a tropical fish aquarium.
    It would be more beautiful, more relaxing, more ecological, less costly and would achieve exactly the same legal results.

    Another analogy test:

    Orly: trial attorney
    a. alchemist: chemist
    b. astrologer: astronomer
    c. space cadet: astronaut
    d. security guard: police officer
    e. All of the above

  142. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I was about to say, “what law review would publish junk like that?” But then there is Herb Titus’ old school, Oral Roberts University Law School or perhaps Liberty University Law School, and then I wondered if William Howard Taft Law School publishes a law review (I don’t think so).

    If only Bob Jones had a law school.

    If it makes anyone feel better (not that it should) the Roberts family has been excised from ORU. After near bankruptcy, a wealthy alum saved it on the condition that the Roberts take a hike. The university is also no longer affiliated with the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association. In other news, ORU is still extremely creepy.

  143. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Another analogy test:Orly: trial attorneya. alchemist: chemistb. astrologer: astronomerc. space cadet: astronautd. security guard: police officere. All of the above

    A security guard could become a police officer, that’s out. Same for space cadet (depending on meaning). Alchemist is tempting, but It’s now poossible to transmute some elements in a lab—although the experiments I have read about all resulted in unstable isotopes.

    Astrologer (spinning BS fo a willing crowd) : Astronomer (observation based science) wins, clearly.

  144. avatar
    Stanislaw February 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Tarrant:

    That said, Leo reminds me of people I would see back when I would go to arcades and play games like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.The ones that would sit by the machine and criticize your choice of character, would tell you that suchandsuch character is better than the one you chose, that they have done all the analysis on how to beat this boss, and that they were so much better than you were at the game and they could kick your ass…all the while always finding an excuse to not actually play the game.They’re out of money, they can’t go to suchandsuch tournament because they aren’t around that day, what have you.

    This comment is full of win. Birthers would be a helpless Zangief trapped in the corner while reality would be represented by Akuma throwing air fireballs, dive-kicking, and teleporting. Oh, and the birthers’ joystick doesn’t work.

  145. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Another analogy test:

    Orly: trial attorney
    a. alchemist: chemist
    b. astrologer: astronomer
    c. space cadet: astronaut
    d. security guard: police officer
    e. All of the above

    McDonald’s : Morton’s The Steakhouse

    Stephen Baldwin : Professional Actor

    Tofurkey : Turkey

    Amazon Kindle Fire : Apple iPad

    Tilapia : Red Snapper

  146. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Arthur: Reminds me of a college friend who was applying to a Ph.D. program at the University of Michigan. He was invited to the campus for an interview, but when he sat down to speak to the Dean of the program he was told, “There appears to be some mistake; we have already rejected you!”

    “But we have a lovely buffet lunch for $24.95. Please get a plate to go.”

  147. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    Lupin:
    I think that for every lawsuit, Orly should be replaced by a tropical fish aquarium.

    It would be more beautiful, more relaxing, more ecological, less costly and would achieve exactly the same legal results.

    And they don’t reek of really cheap perfume (as apparently she does according to one of her former dental patients).

  148. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    Majority Will: Tilapia : Red Snapper

    “Ahhh …. red snap-puh, mmmmm, very tashty!”

    Let’s see, will you take the default order, or go for what’s in the box?

    Oops.

  149. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    JPotter: “Ahhh …. red snap-puh, mmmmm, very tashty!”

    Let’s see, will you take the default order, or go for what’s in the box?

    Oops.

    Some people are just too shellfish.

  150. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    c. space cadet: astronaut

    …particularly because “space cadet” is also slang for nut job. Most apropos analogy IMHO.

    Atticus Finch: Another analogy test:Orly: trial attorneya. alchemist: chemistb. astrologer: astronomerc. space cadet: astronautd. security guard: police officere. All of the above

  151. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    More analogy, video included:

    Birther Lawyers/Real Lawyers, as in
    Live Action Role Players/Real Actors
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=yk2vR8w2sjc&feature=endscreen

  152. avatar
    aarrgghh February 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    i’m hard pressed to top this analogy.

  153. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Yutube, how about you post your personal information on the Internet — right here, on Doc’s blog. You are so friggin anxious for others to compromise their privacy, why don’t you?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

    If Leo wants to sociaize and debate with lawyers, he can come to where they spend their time.

  154. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    Another funny re-imagining of “Far Side” argo; enjoyed visiting your blog, too!

    aarrgghh: i’m hard pressed to top this analogy.

  155. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    John:

    Nice Try Doc, But I invite you to read Minor Vs. Happerset regarding Vice-Chancellor Sanford who appeared to be a recognized AUTHORITY at the time:

    WKA never solved such doubts as it did not proclaim Wong Kim an NBC.The WKA case never claims to solve the question of doubt posed in Minor.The WKA deals with the citizenship under the governoring rule of the 14th Amendment and leaves the original meaning of NBC reached in Minor in tact and undisturbed.

    Nice try, yourself. However –

    Sanford didn’t say that there was NO doubt. He said that there was no REASONABLE doubt. Big difference. The Supreme Court never said that the doubts were reasonable, only that they existed.

    As for WKA, have you ever taken the time to read the government’s SCOTUS brief? The government conceded that if WKA were declared a citizen he would be eligible to be President. And guess what? WKA was declared a citizen, so he was eligible to be POTUS.

  156. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Rickey: Nice try, yourself. However –

    Sanford didn’t say that there was NO doubt. He said that there was no REASONABLE doubt. Big difference. The Supreme Court never said that the doubts were reasonable, only that they existed.

    As for WKA, have you ever taken the time to read the government’s SCOTUS brief? The government conceded that if WKA were declared a citizen he would be eligible to be President. And guess what? WKA was declared a citizen, so he was eligible to be POTUS.

    These guys kill me. The WKA decision called him “natural born” and a “citizen,” and yet these cheese-holes claim he was never called a NBC.

    That’d be like a witness calling an animal black, and also a dog, and some lawyer claiming the witness “never said it was a black dog.”

    Yeesh.

  157. avatar
    Bob Weber February 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    David Farrar:

    They did incorporate a different meaning than a natural born subject…it’s called a natural born Citizen, withcapital C, not a small “s”.Anyone with the remotest hint of American history would never suggest people living in 1776 couldn’t tell the difference between being a natural born subject, and being a natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Mr. Farrar has been sufficiently corrected over the change in capitalization rules since 1787. As a final nail in the coffin, let me quote Birther Holy Writ, Minor v. Happersett:

    “The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

  158. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 13, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    For me, the merging analogies which best explain the spectacle of Orly Taitz’ must accommodate her misapprehension of English as exacerbated by the break-neck pace of her scanning of legal and historical documents. She may well not differentiate between “Presidential” and “preceDental” – or see any difference between Lincoln freeing the slaves, and her enslavement of a Lincoln. And yet she’s added to our conventional wisdom; we now realize the fact that getting rid of a sitting President can be “Like Pulling Teeth”, does not make it a sure thing, even for someone with the “Constitution of a Dentist”.

  159. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Bob Weber: Mr. Farrar has been sufficiently corrected over the change in capitalization rules since 1787. As a final nail in the coffin, let me quote Birther Holy Writ, Minor v. Happersett:

    Hmm, with so much evidence against him, perhaps David should avoid posting ex animo and try communicating ex capite, lest he be laughed ex curia.

  160. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Georgetown,

    You are the lawyer, not me. Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have? a blog degree? What you never gave your name in law school?

  161. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    And what do *you* have? An anonymous and meaningless online handle as well…

    Sorry, “yutube”, the folks here are not dumb enough to fall for your simplistic Concern Trolling tactic here. Nobody’s going to be goaded by you in to releasing personal and private info about themselves. There simply is no reason to and you simply have no room to talk…

    yutube: Georgetown,You are the lawyer, not me. Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have? a blog degree? What you never gave your name in law school?

  162. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    I see how you speak for all G. By the way, are you an attorney, or just another handle too?

  163. avatar
    Majority Will February 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    G:
    And what do *you* have?An anonymous and meaningless online handle as well…

    Sorry, “yutube”, the folks here are not dumb enough to fall for your simplistic Concern Trolling tactic here.Nobody’s going to be goaded by you in to releasing personal and private info about themselves.There simply is no reason to and you simply have no room to talk…

    I nominate G to speak for all. Thanks, G.

  164. avatar
    JPotter February 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Majority Will: I nominate G to speak for all. Thanks, G.

    G, please remind new fish yutube that, until he can tell the difference, everyone’s an attorney in here, and also that I said you’re awesome. Thanks!

  165. avatar
    John Woodman February 13, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    JPotter: please remind new fish yutube that, until he can tell the difference, everyone’s an attorney in here

    Indeed. I for one was awarded my Sui Juris in 1979.

  166. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    yutube:

    You are the lawyer, not me. Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have?a blog degree? What you never gave your name in law school?

    Name a single Constitutional law case which any of those attorneys has won. Just one.

    Does Leo even have a law office?

  167. avatar
    John Woodman February 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Rickey: Name a single Constitutional law case which any of those attorneys has won. Just one.Does Leo even have a law office?

    As far as I know, his lawsuit against Obama was the first lawsuit Leo ever filed. I’m not sure whether he’s ever filed one since then, or not.

  168. avatar
    Wile February 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    Majority Will: I nominate G to speak for all. Thanks, G.

    My wife says I have to hang curtains tonight, so if G could be so kind as to please speak for me…that would be the awesome.

    After the hanging, it’s off to the attic to hunt down my Certification of IANAL.

  169. avatar
    Obsolete February 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Georgetown JD has a long history over at The Fogbow- you can join and read Georgetown JD’s posts and you will probably agree that Georgetown JD truly is a lawyer. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. (Not that I speak for Georgetown JD or they need me to defend them).

    As a matter of fact, a lot of current and retired lawyers post everyday at The Fogbow, some under their real name. Yet Mario or Leo won’t go there and converse with real attorneys. I wonder what they are afraid of?

  170. avatar
    Ballantine February 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    yutube: Georgetown,You are the lawyer, not me. Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have? a blog degree? What you never gave your name in law school?

    Yes, Leo’s bio is laughable as are his arguments. The reason people don’t identify themselves here is that birthers and WND has gone out of their way to harass people who disagree with their irrational derangement, even contacting their employers. Yes, such people are scum. What birthers cannot contest is our legal arguments which every court and every actual legal authority continues to support.

  171. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    John Woodman: As far as I know, his lawsuit against Obama was the first lawsuit Leo ever filed. I’m not sure whether he’s ever filed one since then, or not.

    Leo admitted on the Blog Talk Radio show that Doc linked that Donofrio v Wells was the first suit he had ever filed. To my knowledge the only other lawsuit he has participated is the Old Carco case where he and Birther Attorney Stephen Pidgeon teamed up to represent some former Chrysler dealers. In that case the defendants have been awarded costs that have yet to be calculated. I think the plaintiffs also fired Donofrio and Pidgeon.

  172. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 13, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    John Woodman: As far as I know, his lawsuit against Obama was the first lawsuit Leo ever filed. I’m not sure whether he’s ever filed one since then, or not.

    Oh yes, a suit together with Pigeon in which they tried to argue that the plan to save the auto industry was illegal because Obama was not really the President.

    Did not work out well, actually:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54529543/OLD-CARCO-LLC-APPEAL-2nd-CIRCUIT-108-MOTION-for-costs-on-behalf-of-Appellee-Old-Carco-LLC-TransportRoom-108-0

    Note the address of Pigeon and Donofrio there. I do not think Leo has an office. Probably some basement room where his multiple copies of Vattel are competimng for space with chess opening books, poker probablity literature, treatises on the treatment of the Holy Sprit in various Christian sects and GMS200 tapes made dirt cheaply in Pinochet’s Argentina.

  173. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    I am G and my posts speak on their own. I’ve earned my credibility here, as have the others, and that is all you need to know.

    A word of advice – when you are deep in a hole you’ve dug for yourself, it is unwise to attempt to talk down to those standing above you. It simply makes it too easy for us to kick the dirt from under our feet onto the top of your head…

    yutube: I see how you speak for all G. By the way, are you an attorney, or just another handle too?

  174. avatar
    G February 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    ;)

    Majority Will: I nominate G to speak for all. Thanks, G.

    JPotter: G, please remind new fish yutube that, until he can tell the difference, everyone’s an attorney in here, and also that I said you’re awesome. Thanks!

    Wile: My wife says I have to hang curtains tonight, so if G could be so kind as to please speak for me…that would be the awesome.After the hanging, it’s off to the attic to hunt down my Certification of IANAL.

  175. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    lol, Yea G, all we know is you are one of many here proud for some positive feedback from your other unanimous fellow attorneys. How pathetic is that. At least eBay positive feedbacks are worth bragging about.

  176. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    Yutube. 2 hrs, 23 mins ago
    Georgetown,
    “You are the lawyer, not me. Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have? a blog degree? What you never gave your name in law school?”

    Listen up, Tubeworm: FACTS ARE NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. Have you even studed the Informal Fallacies? I thought not. That would be an Ad Populum fallacy: “Dozens of people (lawyers) believe this, therefore it must be true.” Not necessarily. “My lawyer is bigger and better than your lawyer”? That would be an Ad Verecundiam fallacy, or appeal from Authority. It means nothing to the proposition.

    One day Albert Einstein was asked “Are you aware that hundreds of other physicists dispute your theory?” His response: “One.” In other words, if just ONE theorist can show an iron-clad PROOF that he is wrong, he is wrong. It isn’t a poularity contest.

    What are you wrong about? The fictional two-citizen-parent requirement being the current interpretation of Constitutional Law. It has been proven without question that the current status is Born On Soil = NBC = Eligible to Run for President, and every court will find it so, because it is.

    Now, the position “The NBC requirement ought to be stricter… two citizen parents, no dual citizenship, no dark skin, no funny names, whatever… YOU CANNOT BE WRONG ABOUT THAT. That is an opinion. You are welcome to try to change what NBC means for Article 2 purposes. It’s a stupid idea in MY opinion, but at least it’s not crazy. Have at it.

    But arguing that’s the way it is NOW, and the courts are wrong, is just plain batshit crazy. And no fallacy-ridden arguments or out-of-context citations or statements from long-dead Swiss political philosophers will make it so.

    And as to hiding behind internet handles: I post with my real name, I live in Baltimore, I have a degree in History; I am related to a Founder, so I am more than passingly familiar with Revolutionary and Federal history. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me everywhere.

    I fear no Birther. In fact, I am proud to be defending the Constitution AGAINST attack by birthers. You got a problem with that? Bring it on. In fact, tell Orly where I live. I’m stocked up on Flying Monkey Repellent.

    Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    I feel a touch of modus ponendo ponens in the air.

    Rickey: As for WKA, have you ever taken the time to read the government’s SCOTUS brief? The government conceded that if WKA were declared a citizen he would be eligible to be President. And guess what? WKA was declared a citizen, so he was eligible to be POTUS.

  178. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

    I would kind of like it if yutube remained–I want to see Thomas sling a cow at him!

  179. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter February 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    For all you science and arithmetic people, I have just invented a brand new science thingy called The Rictus Scale of Birther Lawsuits, which allows the degree of absurdity in Birther Lawsuits to be objectively measured.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/the-rictus-scale-of-birther-lawsuits/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  180. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    OK. I have been buying and selling on eBay for 13 years and have a 100% positive feedback rating.

    yutube: At least eBay positive feedbacks are worth bragging about.

  181. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    All right, when the Apuzzo comes out of the wardrobe, imagine him turning into the funniest thing you can imagine, wave your wands using the movement I showed you and say the charm: “ridikkulus.”

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: For all you science and arithmetic people, I have just invented a brand new science thingy called The Rictus

  182. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Now, the position “The NBC requirement ought to be stricter… two citizen parents, no dual citizenship, no dark skin, no funny names, whatever… YOU CANNOT BE WRONG ABOUT THAT. That is an opinion. You are welcome to try to change what NBC means for Article 2 purposes. It’s a stupid idea in MY opinion, but at least it’s not crazy. Have at it.
    But arguing that’s the way it is NOW, and the courts are wrong, is just plain batshit crazy. And no fallacy-ridden arguments or out-of-context citations or statements from long-dead Swiss political philosophers will make it so.

    Thomas,

    You’ve powerfully captured the essential idiocy of the birther position, as well as the frustration that so many have with their intractable know-nothingness. Bravo!

  183. avatar
    misha February 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    yutube: At least eBay positive feedbacks are worth bragging about.

    I have 100%. Eat your heart out.

  184. avatar
    misha February 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

    I fart in your general direction.

    Quick, what’s your favorite color?

  185. avatar
    John Potter February 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    eBay, 100%, 225
    Amazon, 98.5%, 4.9 stars, 453 (currently in retirement there)

  186. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 13, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    Leo must be desperate if he has to send his carnival barker over here to lure folks into the fun house. “Step right up, step right up! You won’t believe your eyes.”

  187. avatar
    yutube February 13, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Leo must be desperate if he has to send his carnival barker over here to lure folks into the fun house.“Step right up, step right up! You won’t believe your eyes.”

    Wasn’t that the President’s quote last summer? You’re fired.

  188. avatar
    Arthur February 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: “Step right up, step right up!

    Anyone like Tom Waits? “Step Right Up”–recorded live in Germany, 1977.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRHgE2Yi3To&feature=related

  189. avatar
    misha February 14, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    yutube: Leo Donofrio has a bio, laughable by many here, but its a bio, Mario has a bio, Van has a bio, Mark has a bio. What do you have?

    I have a paralegal cert from Old Dominion University, in Norfolk. When a plaintiff wanted to sue for ophthalmological malpractice, I was consulted.

    Mario is an ambulance chasing DWI lawyer, who makes a tidy living helping drunks get back behind the wheel, so they can cause more carnage.

    See this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694666.shtml

    Leo, who made this two-parent nonsense from whole cloth, is a fifth rate lawyer, and a third rate poker player.

  190. avatar
    G February 14, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    LOL! You present an interesting rating system, indeed:

    To that end, I propose The Rictus Scale!!! Rictus is defined as:
    rictus [ˈrɪktəs]
    n. pl. rictus or rictuses
    1. The expanse of an open mouth, a bird’s beak, or similar structure.
    2. A gaping grimace: “his mouth gaping in a kind of rictus of startled alarm” (Richard Adams).
    3. a fixed or unnatural grin or grimace, as in horror or death.
    In other words, the more we groan at the lawsuit, and make faces, the higher on the scale it is. All we have to do is identify the elements which make us groan and assign them a numerical value. Here are my thoughts. A Birther Lawsuit gets a point for each of these elements of absurdity:

    As you mentioned, the suggested point system is just the start…and there is no defined upper limit to how many points can be accumulated. Could be quite a challenge to manage… then again, it is a clever way of pointing out when crazy is “off the charts”… ;)

    I do suggest adding 1 point for any reference to the Dred Scott decision…

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: For all you science and arithmetic people, I have just invented a brand new science thingy called The Rictus Scale of Birther Lawsuits, which allows the degree of absurdity in Birther Lawsuits to be objectively measured.http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/the-rictus-scale-of-birther-lawsuits/Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter

  191. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    Arthur: Anyone like Tom Waits? “Step Right Up”–recorded live in Germany, 1977.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRHgE2Yi3To&feature=related

    Oh yeah!

    The big print giveth, the little print taketh away!

  192. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter February 14, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    Thank you G!!! I will add the Dred Scott thing to the Rictus Scale. Interestingly, the adjective form of “rictus” is “rictal” sooo I am kind of thinking about some fun stuff to say with “rictal” in it.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Plus, is that youtub person really from Paracletus???

  193. avatar
    G February 14, 2012 at 1:13 am #

    *snicker*…

    Yeah… I think we both know what that sounds similar too… and can come up with many reasons for why that too makes the analogy even more apt… ;)

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Interestingly, the adjective form of “rictus” is “rictal” sooo I am kind of thinking about some fun stuff to say with “rictal” in it.

  194. avatar
    John Potter February 14, 2012 at 3:48 am #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: For all you science and arithmetic people, I have just invented a brand new science thingy called The Rictus Scale of Birther Lawsuits, which allows the degree of absurdity in Birther Lawsuits to be objectively measured.

    Next step is to write a script to analyze a case’s documents and add up all the points. Could get really tedious! Would also allow for a nearly limitless list of scoring possibilities, weighted scores, bonuses for combos, etc.

  195. avatar
    The Magic M February 14, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Interestingly, the adjective form of “rictus” is “rictal” sooo I am kind of thinking about some fun stuff to say with “rictal” in it.

    Because birthers are anatal retentive? ;-)

  196. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 14, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    Hmmm. I wonder if I should change the name to “The Rictal Scale”???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Squeeky, I think “Rictal Scale” is a bit more snappy.

  198. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 14, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    DrC:

    Well then, I am changing it. I like the sound of “Rictal Scale” better, too.

    Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  199. avatar
    Rickey February 14, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Reality Check: Leo admitted on the Blog Talk Radio show that Doc linked that Donofrio v Wells was the first suit he had ever filed. To my knowledge the only other lawsuit he has participated is the Old Carco case where he and Birther Attorney Stephen Pidgeon teamed up to represent some former Chrysler dealers. In that case the defendants have been awarded costs that have yet to be calculated. I think the plaintiffs also fired Donofrio and Pidgeon.

    Leo would have trouble getting hired by an insurance company to defend whiplash cases,

  200. avatar
    Majority Will February 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    The Magic M: Because birthers are anatal retentive?

    Nicely done.

  201. avatar
    G February 14, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    Agreed.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Squeeky, I think “Rictal Scale” is a bit more snappy.

    Squeeky Fromm: Well then, I am changing it. I like the sound of “Rictal Scale” better, too.

  202. avatar
    chancery February 15, 2012 at 6:45 am #

    <blockquote cite="comme

    John Woodman: The term “natural born,” by the way, * * * derives from the English (and Biblical) idea that God has instituted a natural order: Individuals are subject to the authorities that God has put in place (kings and governments). Those authorities are subject to God, and owe certain things to those who are subject to them. That’s where the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” derive from, and they were used in the English language and in our legal heritage for literally centuries before the Presidential eligibility clause was drafted.

    nt-154670″>

    [End quote -- having trouble with the quote editor]

    John, with respect, I’m not sure this is correct. Do you have any sources in mind?

    My own view* is that “natural born” is a pleonasm, which is a fancy way of referring to a phrase with elements of of redundancy. The language of the common law is full of redundant phrases. Indeed, so are the traditional English language translations of the Bible (as well as, so I understand, the Hebrew scriptures) and much other English writing of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

    In other words, I think that “natural born” simply meant “born,” with the word “natural” adding a rhetorical emphasis. “Natural” also distinguishes physical birth from spiritual birth, as in baptism, and the political “birth” represented by naturalization or some other manner of creating allegiance to a sovereign or a state, both of which were matters of greater importance and debate in past centuries than now. (To that extent, of course, the additional word was formerly not, in fact, redundant.)

    I could be wrong, of course, and it would be interesting to find a scholarly treatment of the question. Not the legal meaning of the term, for which we have good authority, but the broader question of the overtones of political, religious, and philosophical meaning which the phrase conveyed in the seventeenth century.

    Cheers,

    Chancery

    P.S. Your summary of the Wong Kim Ark holding in paragraph 3 of the quoted post is one of the best and most concise that I’ve seen.

    _______________
    * My view has certainly been influenced by the discussions here and in the Fogbow, although I don’t recall much if any discussion of redundancy. But I could be parroting someone else’s thinking without realizing it.

  203. avatar
    chancery February 15, 2012 at 6:49 am #

    yutube: I think it’s time for them to step up to the plate at the big show. Minor league does not pay well.

    Doctor C’s blog _is_ the big show on these questions.

  204. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    But I do not pay well.

    chancery: Doctor C’s blog _is_ the big show on these questions

  205. avatar
    John Woodman February 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    chancery: it would be interesting to find a scholarly treatment of the question. Not the legal meaning of the term, for which we have good authority, but the broader question of the overtones of political, religious, and philosophical meaning which the phrase conveyed in the seventeenth century.

    Excellent, excellent comment. I should more properly have said, “appears to derive…”

    The term obviously goes back at least to Calvin’s Case in 1608. I’ve assumed it came from there, as the entire rationale for the case’s decision was the “natural law” set up by God. But it’s possible it could go back further. I too would be interested in seeing a detailed scholarly treatment of the origin of the term.

  206. avatar
    G February 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    I agree with you.

    chancery: In other words, I think that “natural born” simply meant “born,” with the word “natural” adding a rhetorical emphasis. “Natural” also distinguishes physical birth from spiritual birth, as in baptism, and the political “birth” represented by naturalization or some other manner of creating allegiance to a sovereign or a state, both of which were matters of greater importance and debate in past centuries than now. (To that extent, of course, the additional word was formerly not, in fact, redundant.)

  207. avatar
    chancery February 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    John Woodman: Excellent, excellent comment. I should more properly have said, “appears to derive…”

    The term obviously goes back at least to Calvin’s Case in 1608. I’ve assumed it came from there, as the entire rationale for the case’s decision was the “natural law” set up by God. But it’s possible it could go back further. I too would be interested in seeing a detailed scholarly treatment of the origin of the term.

    Ouch. You’ve prompted me to take a look at some of the parts of Calvin’s Case that I’d only skimmed before (in fact I cheated by relying on the Polly Price article), and I’m beginning to wonder if my comment is simply wrong. That is, perhaps “natural” is in fact meant to modify “subject” rather than “born.” You’re certainly correct that it’s not possible to understand the reasons for the selection of the term in Calvin’s Case without wading through the thickets of seventeenth century natural law philosophy.

  208. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    JPotter: If only Bob Jones had a law school.

    If it makes anyone feel better (not that it should) the Roberts family has been excised from ORU. After near bankruptcy, a wealthy alum saved it on the condition that the Roberts take a hike. The university is also no longer affiliated with the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association. In other news, ORU is still extremely creepy.

    Do they get their basketball team back?

  209. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Yutube, how about you post your personal information on the Internet — right here, on Doc’s blog. You are so friggin anxious for others to compromise their privacy, why don’t you?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

    If Leo wants to sociaize and debate with lawyers, he can come to where they spend their time.

    I suspect its Leo hisself.

  210. avatar
    JPotter February 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    Keith: Do they get their basketball team back?

    Their b-ball was never interrupted. To my knowledge. I don’t follow ‘hoops’, but know a musician that plays at all their home games. If they haven’t fielded a team for teh past several years, then I’ve been had! ;)

  211. avatar
    Majority Will February 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Keith: I suspect its Leo hisself.

    Most likely.

  212. avatar
    John Woodman February 16, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    chancery: You’re certainly correct that it’s not possible to understand the reasons for the selection of the term in Calvin’s Case without wading through the thickets of seventeenth century natural law philosophy.

    I’ve been wading through Calvin’s Case myself. I must say that the introduction to this case by Lord Coke I find not only prescient but very surprisingly beautiful.

    As for the term “natural born subject,” one thing is now clear to me: the use of the word “natural” quite definitely predates Calvin’s Case.