Skip to comments.Cars, quo warranto, and Obama (Donofrio update)
Posted on 12/05/2009 10:43:07 AM PST by Danae
With so many lawsuits filed every day in America, one more might seem irrelevant. There is one however that should be watched, but will most likely escape notice. For a little while at any rate
Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
1. A motion to reconsider the Court's approval of the dealer rejections. 2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
You then officially in the U.S. becomes a dual citizen and dual citizens cannot be President of the U.S. except for this affirmative action, illegal alien, and usurper who sneaked into the W.H. by the biggest political fraud the nation has ever seen and what our forefathers fought against!!!
A couple of problems with that idea. First off, you're still allowing foreign law to dictate a US citizen's status. Second, Italy doesn't share its list of who has applied for an Italian passport with the US government anymnore than the US informs Italy of everyone who has applied for a US passport. There's no mechanism by which the US would ever know. The only US law is that persons holding a US passport must use that passport to enter and leave the US. Once at their destination, and at any other point in their travels prior to reentering the US, they can use any passport.
In the same way, lots of constitutional scholars say if Obama was born in HI and even if his father was a UK subject, Obama is a constitutional “natural born citizen” because of the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark. I disagree, but only a Supreme Court decision can ultimately refute them. If the Supreme Court ruled against him, Obama’s ineligibility based on his UK subject father might not apply retroactively and he might get a pass. No one including Obama can say for certain how the Supreme Court would rule on D’Onofrio’s theory of Obama’s ineligibility.
In contrast, there is near total agreement that if Obama was born outside the US and not even on or near a US base to two US citizen parents, he would not be a natural born citizen. It has been beaten into the public brain that an HI birth is the single thing that makes his a natural born citizen.
If Obama hid a foreign birth or knew that his HI vital records had been amended and hid it, that would be fraud. Even this Democratic Congress would impeach Obama for such a fraud, in my view.
I believe that retroactive citizenship would be more than just a long shot. It is a circumstance of Birth. Wong Kim Ark was quite clearly decided to be a citizen, but NOT a natural Born Citizen and the decision makes that very clear distinction.
If anything, Wong Kim Ark makes the distinction between citizen and Natural Born citizen very clear.
Read this article carefully, it is dated from 1884, during the term of another unconstitutional President,Chester Arthur.
It is very clear, Citizens born in the country, of a father who is an alien, are NOT natural Born citizens.
You and I agree with that, and we probably agreed with 2nd Amendment gun rights before Heller.
But as with Heller, until SCOTUS agrees with us, we just have a nonenforceable opinion. So far even Heller is only law in the circuits that have adopted it as Heller has not yet been “incorporated” as applicable to all states by SCOTUS.
Heller actually gives me hope that the Supremes can step up and resolve a 200+ year-old dispute. If D’Onofrio’s quo warranto discovery reaches SCOTUS and Obama doesn't duck out by claiming that his mother was a legally single US citizen due to a bigamous marriage to his father, maybe we will finally have a ruling on whether a natural born citizen can be a dual citizen at birth.
“Obama doesn’t duck out by claiming that his mother was a legally single US citizen due to a bigamous marriage to his father, maybe we will finally have a ruling on whether a natural born citizen can be a dual citizen at birth.”
This would crack me up to no end! I would likely herniate myself laughing! No seriously..... he would need more than just a bit of luck with that, since his BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the legal document that he has been using to certify that he is an NBC... ROFL... he would have to use his.... wait for it... LMAO... LONG FORM.... and get his own “Legitimate” birth.... (giggling) turned into a ... BASTARDIZATION! ROFLMAO..... It might just be worth it to see Obama sty to swallow his own ego to do that! HAHAHA
No I don’t think that is a likely scenario..... Obama reversing course on that issue is just inconceivable.
“No I dont think that is a likely scenario..... Obama reversing course on that issue is just inconceivable.”
In “Dreams” Obama said he didn't dare investigate whether his parents were actually married for fear he would find they were not, so Obama actually presented himself in his own biography as perceiving himself to likely be illegitimate.
Obama has a long relationship with Kezia, his father's first wife, who told DailyMail BHO Sr was a bigamist. Most bios of BHO Sr on the web refer to Stanley Ann as his second wife, but there is no evidence of divorce from Kezia. The HI vital record of the Dunham-Obama marriage in HI was only disclosed this year.
Under the BNA of 1948 that “governs” Obama, he can't receive UK nationality from his father if he is foreign born illegitimate. The BNA of 1948 further states that a marriage must be legitimate in the country in which it was performed, which excludes HI a a location for any Muslim multiple marriage.
Who is it that dangled “governed by BNA of 1948” before us? It was Obama. Do you trust him? I don't. I will assume as little as possible and attempt to verify everything fully.
Look at it this way, had Fukino just said “birth certificate” then the birthers would be complaining that Hawaii must have other information that they are covering up or refusing to release because the state maintains vital records that cover more than just birth information.
Excerpt from the introduction:
“Vital statistics for the United States are obtained
from the official records of live births, deaths, fetal
deaths, marriages, divorces, and annulments. The official
recording of these events is the responsibility of
the individual States and independent registration
areas (District of Columbia, New York City, and territories)
in which the event occurs; the Federal Government
obtains use of the records for statistical purposes
through a cooperative arrangement with the responsible
agency in each State.”
See also: http://www.vitalrec.com/
In general, vital records weren’t kept in the United States until the early 1900s. Vital records usually contain the full name of the individual involved in the event, the date of the event, and the county, state, or town where the event took place. Many vital records contain much more information. For example, birth records usually have the parent’s full names, the name of the baby, the date of the birth, and county where the birth took place, marriage records often record the names and birthplaces of each individual’s parents. Divorce records usually list the names of the couple’s children. Death certificates often mention where the individual will be buried, and also give the name of the individual who reported the death. and death certificate.
“Vital records are records of life events kept under governmental authority, including birth certificates, marriage licenses, and death certificates. In some jurisdictions, vital records may also include records of civil unions or domestic partnerships. In the United States, vital records are typically maintained at the state level.”
“No. Under Italian law, I inherited Italian citizenship from my mother, who inherited it from her father, who inherited it from his father. I don’t have to apply for it. I only need to prove the lineage and I can get an Italian passport.”
No way I’m voting for you for President now.
LOL I wasn’t saying I trusted the man. Quite the opposite! LOL
I was saying he will be the last person to ever go that direction! LOL
The question here then is, if this marriage was a LEGAL, or a "tribal" marriage, hmmmm???
Second, I believe Italy has to follow the same rules as the other E.U. countries!!!
My understanding is that tribal marriages are in fact legal in Kenya and prevent subsequent marriages from being legal:
See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
My opinion is that folks who assert a conclusion that Obama is a dual citizen are overstating certainty that the BNA of 1948 would make Obama II a UK subject. The 1948 BNA explicitly excludes illegitimate children from becoming UK subjects automatically through their UK fathers at birth.
Obama has thrown anyone and anything “under the bus” that stood in his way, and I have no doubt that any embarrassment over declaring himself to be the child of a bigamous marriage would hold him back if it would save his eligibility when he already put out the likelihood that he was the bastard child of two unmarried people in Dreams.
I greatly value and agree (as a non-lawyer) with Leo D’Onofrio’s exploration of the original meaning of “natural born citizen” and I hope he gets a chance to obtain a SCOTUS ruling in line with his conclusions (5-4 of course, like Heller). But D'Onofrio's analysis fails if the 1948 BNA doesn't actually make Obamaa a UK subject and dual citizen as a result of bigamy.
Would SCOTUS invalidate Obama's presidency simply because Obama's father was a bigamous non-citizen, even if it was determined that Obama's citizenship was solely US from his legally single mother with no UK citizenship, no legal dual sovereignty that the founding father's were concerned with? I doubt it.
What is most critical is that D’Onofrio’s “best evidence” discovery of Obama’s HI so-called NBC vital records will open the possibility of a foreign (Kenya) birth. Given Obama’s mother's age Obama wouldn't even be a citizen. If a foreign (Kenya) birth is proved, I believe SCOTUS would affirm Obama's ineligibility 9-0, despite grousing by Ginsberg.
There are a lot of reasons. One big one is that employers find an employee that can work anywhere in the EU without a work permit to be attractive. For another, it makes it much easier to buy property in Italy.
Second, I believe Italy has to follow the same rules as the other E.U. countries!!!
If you don't believe what I'm saying, google "Italian dual citizenship." There are a number of companies that explain the details and will help do the paperwork.
It must have been a huge-huge pill for Barry Soetoro to swallow when ho co-signed the same Resolution, huh???
Update, the video is at the link. Its also at Leo’s site.
Yes, he has ... deliberating very diligently,
I’m sure. God be with him, bless his efforts
and protect him.
Got to thank Starwise! She found it before I did. Had my head in the sand for the last week. Christmas shopping.... ugh.... torture in traffic...... no brain left.
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.