Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2 (with Exhibits)
The Right Side of Life ^ | 3/6/09 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 03/07/2009 8:11:43 PM PST by classical artist

Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has released the second part of his three-part legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto.

A key, fundamental observation on Mr. Donofrio’s part is the following excerpt:

Some who support Obama’s eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment. Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must “imply” or “assume” that is the case. But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal. You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead. It is a lie.

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible. This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.

(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; british; certifigate; citizenship; colb; congress; constitution; corruption; coverup; democrats; democratscandals; donofrio; doublestandard; eligibility; hawaii; impeachobama; ineligible; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatruthfile; orly; orlytaitz; scotus; taitz; truthers
Leo is writing a book -this is impressive!
1 posted on 03/07/2009 8:11:43 PM PST by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: classical artist

But everyone will be convinced he was born in Hawaii, after the students of UofH will make a film about Obama’s birth —no joke. (my statement about everyone being convinced is sarcasm, but the plans for a film are real)

See:

Film to Be Made in Hawaii of Obama’s Birth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2201720/posts


2 posted on 03/07/2009 8:38:18 PM PST by FocusNexus ("Good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise." GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
I noticed in the case of In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, it states It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia.

Does "and" mean both are required to file Quo Warranto?
3 posted on 03/07/2009 8:59:11 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I am trying to mesh this post with what Orly Taitz (SP?) is doing.

I think I might understand better now, though the author of this post makes clear that perhaps he would have done it differently.

I am one who has always thought that Obama was hiding something, though I was not sure what he was hiding.

Paternity, Geography, College Admission/Grant/Loan status Lots of questions.

I have said that I thought state legislatures need to address this issue, since States control ballots, and their Electors, to the Electoral College.

I was not sure why I felt that way, that most of the present cases were only useful for publicity, that these cases, on their own, would probably not remove Obama, but now I feel like I understand what was bothering me.

Separation of Powers is important.

Also, I would rather the Obama qualifications issue is well known, prior to the next Presidential election, even to the point that maybe Obama will not appear on the ballot in a couple of states due to documentation issues.

I think there will be hell to pay, if Obama is forced out before this term is up. I would rather the voters rebuke him, in 2 years, and then kick him out, in 4.

However, the law is the law and the lawyers who are on these cases deserve our support and prayers.

4 posted on 03/07/2009 9:24:27 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
Leo is writing a book -this is impressive!

Nah. He's just trying to turn law into "performance art," And shi**ing on the Constitution in the process.

Remember Serrano's "Piss Christ" which was a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine? Well, this is basically "Sh** Constitution."

Just for starters:

Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible. And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

Congress has no power under the Constitution to grant powers expressly limited to it to another branch of government.

Donofrio's argument here would allow Congress to delegate its power to legislate to the executive branch. Effectively creating a dictator.

This goes completely against the fundamental concept of separation of powers which is the very framework of our Constitution.

2. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

Some who support Obama’s eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment. Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must “imply” or “assume” that is the case. But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.


Yes, it does state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President. It does so by providing for no other means, nor does it empower Congress in any other fashion.

Congress may only do that which it is constitutionally empowered to do.

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible. This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.


All that can be constitutional is that which is WITHIN the Constitution, not without it.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.

What happens?


What happens?

Well, according to Donofrio, we just wipe our collective a**es with the Constitution and have the DC District Court remove them from office.

For anyone who actually gives a rat's sphincter about the Constitution, they recognize that the Constitution has a shortcoming and propose amending it as prescribed by Article V.

Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached. He’s not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason. Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation? I don’t believe so.


The framers knew that they didn't know everything and that they couldn't conceive of every possible scenario. So to that end, they included Article V in the Constitution to allow for it to be amended in the event that the Constitution came to have any shortcomings.

My respect for the separation of powers in our Constitution is the core reason I was so willing to drop the eligibility fight once the Electoral College met. I understand and respect the Constitution.


Yeah, sure you do. Up until it gets in the way of whatever your political agenda is, and then you'll use smoke and mirrors to create some false illusion of constitutionality.

Taking a cue from the Renhquist court in Roe v. Wade there, Leo? Shall we call your theory the "Donofrio Penumbra"? I think that's a perfect name for it and that's what I think I'll refer to it from now on.

I realize this is an entirely new theory of Constitutional law...


Damn right it's new. Because before this theory was cooked up, the only only place it had previously existed was in Donofrio's a**.

...and that the common accepted interpretation is that the President can only be removed by impeachment. As stated above, the Constitution does notstate anywhere in its text that impeachment is the only means by which the President can be removed.


Again, yes it does as again it provides no other means nor does it empower Congress to do anything else.

Donofrio here is essentially making the classical liberal argument that Congress can do whatever it wants unless the Constitution specifically says that it can't.

That's not how it works. And that argument doesn't fly when liberals make it to support something they want Congress to do and it doesn't fly here for Donofrio.

But it seems clear that there are those who are willing to sell out their principles in order to further a political agenda.


5 posted on 03/07/2009 11:07:12 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Your thinking is twisted! Donofrio loves the constitution! He is doing this research with out any pay just out of love for the law & this country. Your comment adds nothing to the conversation.


6 posted on 03/08/2009 6:46:45 AM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
What has been “shredded” to me, is any doubt that Michael Michael is an Obama troll.

He wants us to believe that he is concerned about the Constitution, yet Michael Michael obviously cares little about the very real Constitutional eligibility question at the heart of this matter. He pops up on the “birther” threads, almost always, but I have not seen him much, elsewhere, have you?

Also, to me, Donafrio has obviously given a huge amount of time and effort to the cause of trying to resolve the matter without a Constitutional crisis.

MM says that Congress can not change the Constitution (in so many words)??

Well, Donofrio pointed out exactly where the Constitution actually granted the powers and process that Donafrio suggests.

In a nutshell, if Michael Michael does not like the end result? Michael Michael will call that option “unconstitutional” -— every now and then he is correct, but his success, with that strategy, has nothing at all to do with MM’s concern for any of our founding documents.

7 posted on 03/08/2009 8:18:20 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

He’s been on FR since 1-27 and what has he done besides obfuscate on eligibility threads? He claims to be a true conservative but try to find any other issue that arouses his interest on FR. There are none. He is here strictly for misdirection and obfuscation purposes.


8 posted on 03/08/2009 8:57:49 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

What is Obama hiding? All he has to do is produce a $10 copy of his birth certificate... When someone hides something, they have something to hide.


9 posted on 03/08/2009 2:24:30 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
What is Obama hiding? All he has to do is produce a $10 copy of his birth certificate...

He's already done that. That's what you get when you send your $10 to Hawaii requesting a copy of your birth certificate.


10 posted on 03/08/2009 2:54:09 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

No, that was a COLB that experts allege is a forgery.

The only evidence coming out is that Obama was born in Kenya. His mother had left the USA and was to young to pass along citizenship. At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was a British territory. Obama’s father was a British citizen. Thus, Obama was born a British citizen. That makes Obama ineligible to serve as President. I believe that he will be removed from the Oval office


11 posted on 03/08/2009 4:36:27 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
No, that was a COLB that experts allege is a forgery.

A Certification of Live Birth is a certified copy of one's birth certificate. It's not a document unto itself.

And the only ones alleging it to be a forgery is someone who was long ago exposed as a fraud who fabricated his "evidence," and another person who's no expert at all, and really doesn't know the first thing about digital graphics and imaging.


12 posted on 03/08/2009 4:39:32 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Re-read what I wrote. Obama was born in Kenya according to his grandmother who was present at his birth, his mother was to young to pass along USA citizenship, and his father was a British citizen in the British territory of Kenya. Obama was born a British citizen... That is why Obama won’t show his original birth certificate.

You sound like Michael Moore to me!


13 posted on 03/08/2009 4:46:36 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
The only evidence coming out is that Obama was born in Kenya

There's not one shred of credible evidence to support that.

His mother had left the USA and was to young to pass along citizenship.

If he were born outside the United States, which again, there's not one shred of credible evidence to support that.

Obama’s father was a British citizen. Thus, Obama was born a British citizen. That makes Obama ineligible to serve as President.

Whatever some other country considered him, is irrelevant. Natural born citizenship of the United States is jus solis, just as it was when our Constitution was ratified and thereafter. The citizenship of your parents doesn't matter, unless your parents are foreign diplomats residing in the US in the direct service of their respective countries.


14 posted on 03/08/2009 4:50:17 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
Re-read what I wrote. Obama was born in Kenya according to his grandmother who was present at his birth...

His grandmother never claimed he was born in Kenya.

Obama was born a British citizen...

His being born in Hawaii makes him a natural born US citizen.


15 posted on 03/08/2009 4:52:03 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Firmly false! Obama’s grandmother claims on video to have been present when Obama was born in Kenya. There is no evidence being produced of Obama being born in Hawaii.

Why won’t Obama produce his original birth certificate for the authorities? When someone hides something, they have something to hide.

You must be a Democrat!


16 posted on 03/08/2009 4:58:43 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
Firmly false! Obama’s grandmother claims on video to have been present when Obama was born in Kenya.

Sorry, there is no such video of Obama's grandmother claiming to have been present at Obama's birth.

There is no evidence being produced of Obama being born in Hawaii.

Of course there has. There has been the Certification of Live birth showing him to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, along with unambiguous statements by Hawaiian officials that they have Obama's birth certificate on file.

Why won’t Obama produce his original birth certificate for the authorities?

Because no authority has ever asked for it.

What, is it your habit to regularly stop cops on the street and show them your driver's license?


17 posted on 03/08/2009 5:15:36 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

MM thinks that lots of people read his steaming piles thinly disguised as “comments”. He signed up solely to harrass people on the 0bama eligibility threads. Many think he’s a paid operative.


18 posted on 03/08/2009 5:35:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (THa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

Meant to add - he THINKS lots of people read his comments. Most people see his regurtitated twaddle and skip over it.


19 posted on 03/08/2009 5:36:15 PM PDT by little jeremiah (THa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

The COLB Zero posted on his websites.

Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...

It’s the short form reflection of his original sealed BC right?

And this short form shows on his websites he was born in HOnolulu HI right?

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

Or maybe he just likes pouring money out of his a**

Yes, please explain.


20 posted on 03/08/2009 5:45:40 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
The COLB Zero posted on his websites.

Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...


No court has ever asked him for anything.

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

Again, no court has ever asked Obama to turn over anything.


21 posted on 03/08/2009 5:48:24 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Obama was born in Kenya, therefore, is not eligible to serve as President. When one is required to be a natural born citizen to serve as President, they must prove it.

Why won’t he produce his original birth certificate? When someone hides something, they have something to hide.

Are you sure you are not Michael Moore?


22 posted on 03/08/2009 5:50:55 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Citizenship of parents at the time of a candidate’s birth do matter in regards to “natural born” citizenship status (in contrast to the other two classifications, citizen, and naturalized citizen) uniquely designed for the presidency.

He’s the first candidate with one parent as a foreign national, his father, and thus was born with dual citizenship. All of this neatly verified on Obama’s own websites, fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org

Past presidents had foreign parents, but became naturalized U.S. citizens upon the candidates birth.

The framers wanted to limit the presidency to at least second-generation — fearful of usurpers, they wanted one’s allegiance solely to the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically defined natural born citizen with case precedent.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S.

Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is.

Furthermore for the 14th Amendment fanatics:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”


23 posted on 03/08/2009 5:57:17 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

LOL!

So he’d rather dole out thousands of $$$$$$$, his time, the hassle, the public relations, holding tight on the reins of his noble transparency just for fun right?

When he could easily submit a material form ending this, no need for the court to subpeona,

but of course Zero and minions would rather fight tooth and nail to avoid subpeona and throw these lawsuits out at the forefront, now headed for the 40th-odd lawsuit?

AGAIN:

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?


24 posted on 03/08/2009 6:09:34 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
Citizenship of parents at the time of a candidate’s birth do matter in regards to “natural born” citizenship status (in contrast to the other two classifications, citizen, and naturalized citizen) uniquely designed for the presidency.

There is no third class of citizenship uniquely designed for the presidency. The natural born citizen clause is simply an exclusion of naturalized citizens, a concept that comes straight out of the English common law, which is what governed citizenship both during the colonial period and after independence.

One's citizenship didn't come from the federal government. It came from the states. In other words, you were only a US citizen by virtue of being a citizen of one of the states.

After independence, all of the thirteen states adopted what are called "reception statutes." These statutes essentially stated that unless modified by a state's constitution or legislative acts of the state, the laws of the state would be the English common law, as the states couldn't just go and create an entire body of law and jurisprudence overnight.

Here's an example from New York's 1777 Constitution:

Such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.


None of the states modified the English common law with regard to citizenship. Therefore what defined citizenship was the jus solis of the English common law, which didn't care what the citizenship of your parents were, unless your parents were in the US as foreign diplomats.

Under jus solis, it's the soil you're born on that determines your citizenship. Not the citizenship of your parents.

The framers wanted to limit the presidency to at least second-generation — fearful of usurpers, they wanted one’s allegiance solely to the United States.

No, they simply wanted to exclude naturalized citizens. This too comes straight out of English common law which excluded naturalized citizens from political office such as the Privy Council, and Parliament.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

Give that man a ceeeeegar!

Again, natural born citizenship under English common law was jus solis. You are a natural born citizen of the country in which you are born, irrespective of the citizenship of your parents, foreign diplomats notwithstanding.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”


Bingham's mention of parents "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" is the "out" for those who are born in the US to foreign diplomats.

Again, the jus solis of English common law didn't care about the citizenship of one's parents.

Here's a contemporary of Bingham's, speaking on the very same subject (Civil Rights Act of 1866):

Blackstone says:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural born subjects are such as are born within the dominion of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are those as as born out of it." --Sharwood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.

The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject of England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."

The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution, and was not changed afterward.


And just to show you that under English common law it was absolutely clear that the citizenship of one's parents didn't matter, here's Blackstone once again:

The children of aliens born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural born subjects, and entitled to all of the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.


"Generally speaking" again refers to the "out" granted to children born to foreign diplomats, who, as per Blackstone, "owe not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent."

In any case, we did NOT adopt the constitution of France. We adopted English common law, under which, if you are born in the United States, you are a "natural born citizen" regardless of the citizenship of your parents.


25 posted on 03/08/2009 7:33:38 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
I wonder what happened to the black helicopters and men in yellow suits who were following him around?
26 posted on 03/09/2009 3:28:27 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

They decided to follow you instead.


27 posted on 03/09/2009 5:54:17 PM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

The COLB Zero posted on his websites.

Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...

It’s the short form reflection of his original sealed BC right?

And this short form shows on his websites he was born in HOnolulu HI right?

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

Or maybe he just likes pouring money out of his a**

Yes, please explain the CONSPIRACY of COMMON SENSE.


28 posted on 03/10/2009 4:41:13 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...

No court has asked for it and no case has ever come to trial.

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

What bad publicity? The only time it gurgles up beyond the conspiracy echo chambers, the whole idea just gets ridiculed. So what bad publicity are you talking about?


29 posted on 03/10/2009 7:38:17 PM PDT by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts

They haven't asked to see it.

and halt the never-ending lawsuits

It wouldn't halt them. Birthers would claim it's not enough. They'd also double down on the argument about his father being a British Subject, or him supposedly losing his citizenship while in Indonesia.

At least half of the lawsuits filed to date are unrelated to the birth certificate.

and bad publicity?

The publicity helps him. It makes his opposition look like unhinged lunatics.

30 posted on 03/10/2009 8:58:35 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Previous question avoided for those with selective reading skills:

So he’d rather dole out thousands of $$$$$$$, his time, the hassle, the public relations, holding tight on the reins of his noble transparency just for...?

Bad publicity would be the obvious fact of Zero and minions blocking any attempt at transparency only fueling the fires of more lawsuits around the country.


31 posted on 03/11/2009 4:03:38 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

What’s unhinged is Zero and minions spending habits shutting down any transparency dealing with these lawsuits fighting to avoid subpeona.


32 posted on 03/11/2009 4:12:36 PM PDT by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson