Obama Citizenship

Leo Donofrio: Active Military Suit is Best Chance at Challenging POTUS Eligibility

By Phil

Today, Leo Donofrio posted an article in which he posits that the best way to achieve standing in challenging an ineligible President, in his view, is to gather as many active military personnel and file suit in federal court:

I?m not speaking of a military takeover.  I?m speaking of  ?standing? to challenge whether Obama is a natural born citizen.  Active military who are currently taking orders from the commander in chief - especially those who are set to go off to war or who are currently in harm?s way -have the best possible standing to challenge whether Obama is a Constitutionally eligible President.

One of my very astute readers ? ?Lawyer? ?brought to my attention the Obama legal team?s motion to dismiss in Berg?s new case, Hollister v. Soetoro. [my link] I?ll return to the military claim shortly, but let me hit a few other points from this motion first.

?Lawyer? told me to look at footnote 1 wherein the Obama legal team requests that the court take Judicial Notice of something written at Factcheck.org.  As if something written at Factcheck.org (a phony baloney name for a shill site if there ever was one) was proof of the matter asserted and just by their making a blog post a Federal Court should simply accept its veracity.  Just because a blogger writes a story doesn?t mean that a Federal Court should accept that story as true.  It?s patently ridiculous.   Additionally, while Hawaii has gone on record to say they have a long form BC, they have never said that the long form BC proves Obama was born in Hawaii.  This isn?t really my issue as I believe Obama isn?t eligible wherever he was born, but the way they are spinning words to make thngs look legit must make one wonder why they don?t just show the damn long form BC.

By this point in time, with Obama already acting as POTUS, and his having been confronted by reserve military? you?d think he might show a military plaintiff some respect.  You know, perhaps it might cross his mind to say, ?OK, you?re the first person who?s asked to see my BC who I feel has earned the right to see it.  So, Mr. Hollister, thank you for serving your country, here?s my long form BC?.  But no. He keeps right on fighting this battle which at this point in time is starting to really smell bad. (We?ve seen McCain?s long form and it totally disproved all allegations he was born on a military installation.  McCain?s long form and his colb both show he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon - Panama. )

The ante now needs to be upped, but I?ll get to that below.  First let me point out a couple of other interesting points in this dismissal motion.

Footnote 2 mentions many of the cases which have been brought on the eligibility issue.  As to Cort Wrotnowski?s case, the footnote references the Conn. court?s dismissal for ?subject matter standing? and asks the court to take Judicial Notice of it.

But this motion certainly does not mention that the statute the Connecticut decision relied upon was not at all relevant to Cort?s pleadings since that statute, by its direct wording, only applies to ?candidates? or ?electors?.  Cort was neither a candidate nor an elector. And there?s your kangaroo Connecticut court ruling now trumpeted by the Obama legal team.

SCOTUS knew damn well that the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling was fully bogus in every damn sense of the word - bogus - ? so they said nothing.  What could they say?  Any commentary on my analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court?s ruling would have to have been in Cort?s favor.

There is no question about that.

But since SCOTUS said nothing, now the Obama legal team makes use of the bogus decision in Connecticut.

I mean really ? what the hell could SCOTUS say? The Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court put on her Obama Brigade uniform and wrote one of the most bogus and clearly full of shit opinions I?ve ever been witness to.  In the SCOTUS application I wrote for Cort, I dismantled her opinion with surgical precision. What she did was take a statute that didn?t apply at all to Cort?s case and then made it appear as if Cort had erroneously brought his law suit under that statute while at the same time she ignored the exact law Cort did file under.  It was pure evil what she did as a jurist.

And SCOTUS just looked the other way.

Then Footnote 2 mentions my case as well:

?Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division
(N.J. 2008)?

My case wasn?t a ?motion?.  My case was a ?direct appeal?.  And just like  in Cort?s case, the NJ Appellate Division judge tried to railroad me as well.  At first, they asked me for a $200 check which is the correct amount for a direct appeal.  But later, when they realized just how powerful my argument was, the Judge forced me to accept my $200 payment back and he made the docket look as if I filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal ($30)  instead of a direct appeal ($200).  Here?s why:

- a direct appeal can go straight to the NJ Supreme Court and from there to SCOTUS

-  a notice of motion for leave to appeal is an interlocutory motion in a pending lower court case and therefore I would be required to go back to the lower court before presenting a justiciable matter to the higher courts

They forced me to take back my $200 payment which had already been accepted by the Court.  How many times do you think that has happened?  Furthermore, the motion for summary judgment that I filed that was actually stamped as ?accepted? by Judge?s chambers was never entered into the record of the case.

SABOTAGE.

The Judge knew damn well I was filing a direct appeal and that such an appeal was statutorily correct.   But he also donned his Obama Brigade protectionary cloak and stuck his neck out to screw with my pleadings.

I have a pending ethics complaint which has been deemed ?confidential? by the Judicial Committee, so I can?t discuss what?s going on with that.  I am also exploring a civil action for monetary damages.  If I take that route, I will issue a subpoena to put each SCOTUS justice on the witness stand to determine whether the lower court judge?s actions in making my ?direct appeal? look like a ?notice of motion for leave to appeal? had any effect on their denial of my application.

I didn?t have to request leave to appeal.  New Jersey code allows a direct appeal for actions in lieu of prerogative writs.  I even cited the statute in my pleadings and correspondence to the judge.   But the judge tried to transform my pleadings to make them appear inferior.  They did the same thing to Cort.  As an attorney, I believe the same legal mind was consulted and the same type of falsehoods were put into these lower court cases.

I have a right to know whether or not the lower court judge?s activity effected the SCOTUS justices in their denial of my claim.  In this way, it may be possible to get some precedent out of them.  The only way to find that out is to ask them under oath.  But I would certainly run into more judiciary protectorate cult operatives by going forth.  And while that may not stop me, I know of another class of litigants who would not be so easily dismissed.

ACTIVE MILITARY USING FEDERAL COURTS ARE OUR BEST CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS.

In the Hollister motion to dismiss, the Obama legal team challenges the plaintiff?s standing in that they claim he  hasn?t suffered an ?injury in fact? since even though he may be subject to military recall, until that might happen he has no injury.  Here?s what they said:

?Although plaintiff alleges he ?is literally caught between a rock and a hard place,?
plaintiff has not alleged that he has personally suffered any injury. See Dkt. #1 at ¶34. In
addition, even if these peculiar claims built on a hypothetical recall to active military duty are Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 9 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 6 of 11 taken at face value, plaintiff is engaged in the rankest speculation: He does not even allege a basis for believing that his return to duty is likely, much less probable. Instead, plaintiff?s  allegations expressly concede that his renewed military service is pure conjecture at this point.?

If this argument is taken away from the Obama legal team, then they have a much more difficult burden.

All things considered, the people with the best possible standing to challenge Obama?s eligibility are ACTIVE military NOW deployed or active military who have recently received deployment orders.

GET A LARGE GROUP OF ACTIVE MILITARY MEMBERS TOGETHER UNDER ONE LAW SUIT AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE A SERIOUS CASE.

The military has already signaled their willingness to stand up to Obama.  See this article?

Bottom line?  while my case and Cort?s case were strong and proper, it?s easy for the CULT?S protectorate to mess with us as they so blatantly did.

But imagine a class action of 25,000 soldiers asking to see his long form BC and also challenging his eligibility as a dual citizen at birth.

WONG KIM ARK as POTUS?

Does anybody believe that the framers intended Wong Kim Ark to be commander in chief?  The case doesn?t say that Wong Kim Ark was a ?natural born citizen?.  The case says he was a ?citizen?.  But many are trying to spin that case to say that Obama is a natural born citizen even though he was British/Kenyan at birth.  In order to make the case you have to add the words ?natural born? to the ruling of the case.

But more than that, you have to believe that the framers intended that persons such as Wong Kim Ark could become President.  That means any Bin Laden born in the US while studying here could become President.  Or, suppose Kim Jong Il of North Korea sent his best students here to study at college.  If any of them had a child, then that child could be President.  The framers sought an extra generation of loyalty to this Country.  That?s why the standards for Senator and Representative only require one to be a ?Citizen? but to be President they asked for more, they demanded more loyalty generationally in that one be a ?natural born citizen.?

If hoards of active military will stand up and fight for our Constitution in the courts, this will provide the best possible chance of the Constituion surviving.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 30, 2009 (boomark / email).