Donofrio, Pidgeon to file suit on behalf of Chrysler dealers
I’ve hesitated writing about this story because I don’t have any reliable sources (discounting the Post & Email Blog, or WorldNetDaily) to know how much is true and how much is posturing.
Nonetheless, it appears that Obama denialist attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have joined forces to represent some Chrysler dealers that lost their franchises as the result of the Chrysler bankruptcy. The dealers may have a difficult time proving that they suffered harm as the result of government action (since they would have lost their dealerships in a bankruptcy whether or not the government had intervened), but it’s a start.
They will file in the DC Federal District Court asking: by what right does President Obama hold the office, that heads the government, that administered the TARP, that bailed out Chrysler, that disenfranchised the dealers, that lived in the house that Jack built? This is what is called a quo warranto (Latin for “frivolous”) lawsuit.
Putting the silliness aside for a moment …
Leo Donofrio has claimed for some time that the only way to remove President Obama from office (short of the constitutional mechanism of impeachment) is a quo warranto action in DC. (Orly Taitz tried quo warranto, but not in DC, the only place where it can be filed.) The scant news coverage names no plaintiffs and no actual lawsuit appears to have been filed yet as of today, December 10, 2009.
We’ll just have to wait to see if the Supreme Court hands Leo his hat again.
[OK, tell me the truth. Did I overdo the hyperlinks?]
Donofrio team pries previously known information out of Hawaii
Leo. C. Donofrio
I don’t want to make too much fun of Donofrio and his article DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist. While the fake dramatic aura written into his article is silly, at least it presents some facts.
It has been clear to me since last year that this, and another approach to obtaining records from Hawaii, if pressed, would result in disclosure of this already-public information. The other approach is the Verification in Lieu of a Certificate. But the information pried out of the Department of Health, is the same information the DOH sent to the Hawaii news service and was subsequently printed in two Honolulu newspapers 47 years ago. I suppose it’s nice that Donofrio has another voice from the same source saying the same thing, but there is no surprise here. This really is “old news”.
Leo also “learned” that Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng does not have a Hawaiian birth certificate which–while still claimed otherwise by birthers as recently as by a filing in Hollister v. Soetoro a week ago–is impossible under Hawaiian law. So TechDude (who claimed he could see that the COLB was constructed from a base copy of Maya’s birth certificate) is exposed as a fraud (wait, TechDude was already exposed as a fraud).
It remains to be seen if Leo Donofrio will be believed or demonized by the birthers. The odds are on the latter.
Donofrio’s latest
Leo. C. Donofrio
The latest being:
Usually I can follow what Leo Donofrio is arguing, but this latest foray into Hawaii has left me somewhat baffled. His mistakes are often subtle, but not so here. If I may summarize:
1) Hawaiian law requires that data supporting official statements be made public
2) Dr. Funkino made an official statement saying that she had examined Barack Obama’s vital records and that they show that he was born in Hawaii.
3) Therefore Hawaiian law requires the State of Hawaii to provide copies of Obama’s vital records to the public.
Before looking at the premises, I like to apply a rule of thumb I call the “smell test”. We know that in Hawaii vital records are private; they are protected from disclosure by law (§ 338-18 Disclosure of records HRS_0338-0018.htm). Now if state department of health director Fukino is prohibited by law from disclosing the record, how can she, by making an official statement permissible by law, (disclosure of index data) make herself suddenly not bound by the other disclosure restrictions of the law? When one arrives at an absurd result, it’s time to inspect the validity of the argument. (more…)
Donofrio alleges Obama birth records amended!
Leo. C. Donofrio
Leo. C. Donofrio
Flash!
Leo Donofrio has made a stunning claim on his blog in a new article: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
One has to translate that headline from “birther speak” to normal usage. “Pending Litigation” means “we haven’t filed a lawsuit” and “Confirms” means “we say so, but we won’t tell you why or how”.
Hawaiian law requires that certificates that have been amended be distinctly marked “altered”, and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth clearly is not marked “altered”. This fact justifies a high degree of skepticism on Donofrio’s claim. Of course the word “Amended” in birther speak might mean something totally different from the normal usage.
Donofrio says:
I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH). (more…)
The Betrayal blog attacks Dr. C (Updated)
Dr. Conspiracy
Readers here may recall an article I published countering Leo Donofrio’s attack against FactCheck.org: Donofrio misfires. Donofrio had made the same mistake Mario Apuzzo made when he attempted to make Barack Obama into a current British Citizen through ignoring the repeal of portions of the British Nationality Act of 1948. One can see on the surface that the analysis is flawed because the conclusion is obviously something that the various British legislation did not intend. This is an application of the general principle: British legislators know their laws better than we do.
Nonetheless, I did make some mistakes in my analysis, pointed out by commenters here, and I hastily corrected my article, and did so several times, sometimes marked with [update] tags to indicate new material, and sometimes not.
Nobamas do not understand the concept of correcting mistakes, considering it somehow shameful (and this explains why they ignore contrary evidence and continue to push long-discredited speculation). Well, my corrections have come to the attention of the Betrayal blog who said:
Factcheck.org endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report.
There is a difference between “data” and “conclusions” (but I guess “false data” sounds worse.) I replied at The Betrayal, and we’ll see if it passes moderation:
You people are so totally silly. Commenters on my blog pointed out some errors and I fixed them. Duh. Has The Betrayal never corrected a mistake? (well maybe not…)
This isn’t a game of “gotcha”. You don’t get points when I make a mistake. You get points when you are right, and the final result is that Donofrio is wrong.
[Update!] (more…)
Donofrio misfires
In a recent article, Leo Donofrio takes aim, it looks like, at this blog.
Long-time readers here know that I have taken up the defense of President Chester A. Arthur after he was most unjustly maligned by innuendo from Mr. Donofrio. While he published a picture of the cover of Arthur foe A. P. Hinman’s book How a British subject became president of the United States, I got a real copy through interlibrary loan, scanned, and published it in its entirety, uncovering an interesting letter, that is the starting point of Donofrio’s latest essay. But Donofrio must have read what I wrote sloppily, because he misrepresents what I said (or perhaps some other person publishing the same rare book and letter) rather badly. Here’s the relevant bit from Donofrio:
Thomas F. Bayard was a US Senator from Delaware between 1869 and 1885, which includes the Chester Arthur administration. From 1885 to 1889, Bayard was Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland. This is the same Bayard mentioned in Hinman’s book on Chester Arthur. Hinman wrote to Bayard and Bayard’s response has been erroneously cited by those who support Obama’s eligibility. For some reason I have yet to comprehend, they argue Bayard was aware of Chester Arthur having been born a British subject.
But nothing in Bayard’s letter to Hinman supports that position.
I daresay Mr. Donofrio has a hard time comprehending this view, because no one I know of has ever made such a claim. My article in which I present Bayard’s letter, Chester A. Arthur: Rest in Peace, claims that it is likely that Hinman (not Bayard) knew about Arthur’s father’s naturalization status based on the letter. But I never said, nor do I have any reason to believe one way or the other, what Senator Bayard believes. (more…)
Donofrio v FactCheck – the Saga Continues
The only “desperate need” is the one that Mr. Donofrio himself is trying mightily to create!
Donofrio continues to pillory FactCheck in a new article: FactCheck capitulates.
In perhaps an allusion to this blog, Donofrio says:
Hearing from bloggers who do not have any legal authority to speak for him settles nothing. It simply causes confusion and that very confusion testifies to the desperate need for clarity and guidance by the President….
Of course Leo Donofrio is himself a blogger, and I think that his casting his legal theories on a largely naive public does more to cause confusion than anything else. The only “desperate need” is the one that Mr. Donofrio himself is trying mightily to create!
Because of Mr. Donofrio’s complaint, I have removed the phrase “former lawyer” from my earlier article. I had said that because on his own blog Mr. Donofrio had stated that he no longer practiced law (or at least that is how I remember it). I need to raise my own standards to stamp out my tendency to make the occasional snide remark. Of course, this is just a blog…
