Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Did Elizabeth Edwards Use "Cherubim" Alias to Attack Rielle Hunter?



Your Ad Here




IS/WAS ELIZABETH EDWARDS
The Commenter Known as "Cherubim"?





THE MYSTERIES OF THE CHERUBIM
Cherubim Wasn't a 'Blog Lurker'
She Only Commented on John Edwards Scandal Stories
--At Least at DBKP




The headline in the NY Daily News said it all.

John Edwards' ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter, targeted by Elizabeth Edwards in blog comments

"A source close to Elizabeth Edwards says the former Senator's wife is sniping at former Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter via an online pseudonym."

The Daily News goes on to say:

For months now, Elizabeth, who is said to be talking to a divorce lawyer, also has been sniping at Hunter - painting her as a blackmailing gold digger - in blog comments where she uses the pseudonym "Cherubim," according to a source who knows Elizabeth.

Though "Cherubim" has recently described herself as an African-American woman, the source insists, "It's Elizabeth. She's used 'cherubim' as a password. Look at the gravestone of their son Wade: It's an angel holding a boy."


The piece finishes with, "Elizabeth's publicist and lawyers for John Edwards and Hunter declined comment."

This only confirms what some in the blogging community have suspected for quite some time. DBKP was tipped to the Cherubim/Elizabeth Edwards connection sometime in spring 2008 (if memory serves).

We ran an IP check then and--again, if memory serves--the Cherubim emails (two or three were checked) came from a New York City neighborhood. While this didn't rule out EE--the woman does travel and could have sent them from there--it was soon forgotten in the everyday rush of other news.



JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL LIBRARY


Over 140 DBKP stories on the scandal and its participants: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Fred Baron, Andrew Young, Elizabeth Edwards and a cast of thousands.



"Cherubim" has commented frequently on John Edwards stories originating at DBKP (including DBKP, DBKP@Blogger and Bloggers News Network).

In fact, on at least one occasion, it's remembered that another commenter referred to Cherubim in a later comment as "Elizabeth Edwards".

Again, around a year ago, another reader asked us about the Cherubim/Elizabeth Edwards connection. We checked out some Cherubim emails at that time and they were now coming from Nashville, TN.

We weren't sure what to make of that.


SO IS ELIZABETH and CHERUBIM ONE AND THE SAME PERSONA?

We asked ex-Hunter confidante, Pigeon O'Brien, what she thought this past weekend. Her response?

"If it quacks like an Elizabeth Edwards duck..."

After sifting through some of Cherubim's comments, JammieWearingFool had this assessment [Elizabeth Edwards Targets Rielle Hunter in Blog Comments?]:

"Yes, it's a safe bet to say this probably is Mrs. Edwards.

Check this Google search and check out how many times 'Cherubim' surfaced the past year or so. Seems Mrs. Edwards has been in deep denial."

Mickey Kaus [Elizabeth Edwards, Blog Mystery Woman?] weighs in with several thoughts:

UPDATE: This blogger claims the Daily News story is false, though I don't quite follow his argument ... ORIGINAL ITEM: If--big if--St. Elizabeth Edwards is the blog commenter "cherubim"--as the N.Y. Daily News' Rush & Molloy argue--it raises as many questions as it answers! In particular, this one: Is "cherubim" a) deluded (actually believing Edwards clearly "was not the father" of Rielle Hunter's child,etc.), or b) deceiving (trying to sell the Web on a story she might well not be true, a story she was in fact working out in her comments)? Or--the inevitable consensus choice (c)--some wacky combo of both? ... As usual, I urge readers not to overlook possibility (b) ... This Daily Beast web page (worth a screen cap just in case) is one of those with juicy "cherubim" comments that now seem much juicier. ... P.S.: Note that on this page "cherubim" is accused of being Elizabeth Edwards back on June 22 by another commenter, "Ohseriously."


To all of this, we might vote for Kaus' (b) above. We've noted in the past about some of Elizabeth Edwards' statements concerning the affair [John Edwards Cover-up: Press Releases a Carefully-Orchestrated Affair?] and might paraphrase O'Brien from above, "If it denies, parses and dissembles like a duck..."

All of this piqued our curiosity, so we checked out the comments from Cherubim for the last 10-11 months that were left on articles originating from this site (DBKP.com).

We include some of them below and will let the reader come to his own conclusion.






[ABOVE: Elizabeth Edwards' and John Edwards backstage at a gathering at Chapel Hill NC on December 30 2006. Rielle Hunter is present and recording the event. Both John and Elizabeth Edwards later released highly-parsed statements, that while factually correct, misled the public into thinking that the affair was long over by the date above.]


John and Elizabeth Edwards have been married for 32 years.They had four children together; three are living, and one died when he was only 16 years old. Elizabeth Edwards has stage 4 cancer. Any decent human being would not have inserted herself into their lives, and then sold stories about them to the National Enquirerfor monetary gain. (Hunter is a “ho” mining for gold.)Lisa Druke, a.k.a. the Rielle (Real) Hunter fills me with disgust. I hope someday to never hear anything about her again.

By the way, I found Elizabeth’s new book, Resilience, to be quite inspirational. I think everyone would benefit from reading the passage in the book that tells the story of the Japanese woman who survived the atomic bomb thatwas dropped on Hiroshima.
--"Cherubim", June 1 2009 comment on John Edwards and Wild Card Ex-Mistress: Barbara Walters Interview with Rielle Hunter

Hours later that same day, Cherubim had another thought.
The Rielle (Real) Hunter is a made up name used
by a woman named Lisa Druke. Her friend, Pigeon,
also uses a made up alias.

I think these people work for some secret society,
that’s out to do evil


Several days later, Cherubim returned to the same story to post the following comment.
Oh people, please!!!!
Everybody in America and Half of Mainland China
knows the Rielle (Real) Hunter has a baby that she is claiming to be John Edwards’. There is no reason for John and Elizabeth Edwards to pay this whore to keep her mouth and legs closed. She has already opened them both multiple times.
That’s why the Rielle (Real) Hunter, herself, does not want a paternity test. She just wants John and Elizabeth to not be at peace. Well Lisa Druke a.k.a.
the Rielle (Real) Hunter your 15 minutes is up.
Good bye!!!!!!

And again, four hours later on the same story:

"Lisa Druke’s (a.k.a. The Rielle (Real) Hunters’)
15 minutes are up."

If this story is true, then one can only conclude that Rielle Hunter knows for a fact that Senator John Edwards is not the father of her child. This makes me happy for John and Elizabeth Edwards, their children ,and the American people whom John Edwards has, and I hope will continue to serve.
President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen, mostly, Wall Street promoters and corporate lawyers to be in his cabinet. He hasn’t included anyone who knows how to interact and relate with everyday American citizens, and then report back to him concerning: (1) what the people need, and (2) whether his administration’s new initiatives are working. During the Great Depression, Eleanor Roosevelt fulfilled this role for President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I nominate Senator John Edwards for this role. John Edwards would be a refreshing change. Is not change what Obama s supposed to be about? As a rival of Barack Obama, for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, John Edwards, consistently spoke up for average Americans, i.e. Main Street, not Wall Street. During his “Road to One America Poverty Tour” John Edwards demonstrated that he is uniquely qualified for this role.
The video evidence follows (put the address in your address bar and click to see the video):

He has walked with and comforted people whose homes were being foreclosed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_GWrYkcCI

Defined the “Great Moral Test of Our Generation”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS1×88ZmohM

He has visited workers employed in the new renewal energy economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50yOR5bvMV0

John Edwards is, also, the only candidate for President that actually went down to New Orleans on several occasions and worked along side those striving to try to bring back the areas that remain so devastated from the effects of Hurricane Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAqktFnA4nk&feature=PlayList&p=EB1EC8919DC5DC52&index=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DaofQCkbA8
--"Cherubim", December 17 2008 comment on John Edwards Scandal: Rielle Hunter In New Jersey, Out of Hush Money



On one of our BNN stories, John Edwards Affair: Rielle Hunter in N. Jersey, Out of Cash last December, Cherubim dropped multiple comments attacking both Rielle Hunter and the National Enquirer.

She also returned to the "Rielle Hunter is a whore" meme that ran through a lot of her comments on DBKP and BNN stories about the Edwards' scandal.


When, Rielle Hunter refused to get a DNA paternity test, it became clear to everyone that Senator John Edwards was not the father of her child. A sex partner is not necessarily a mistress, sometimes the partner is just a whore.

Considering that she was being kept so lavishly by another guy and the National Enquirer, she still should have some money.
But if she needs child support,
she can take the real father to court and get it.

Everybody has been so quick to vilify John Edwards and
suggest that his marriage isn’t solid. Sex isn’t always indicative of the solidity of a marriage.
Mrs. Edwards has cancer, and, maybe, sometimes, when she is on various medications, sexual intercorse is not always possible.
I think Mrs. Edwards “whom John obviously adores” is wise
enough to distinguish true love from a sexual dalliance.


A few days later on the above story, this comment appeared from Cherubim. After the NY Daily News item, it reveals more today than it did back in December.

Some things like marriage relationships are private to be discussed between the persons involved. People need to stop pretending they are outraged. The only person with a right to be outraged is Elizabeth Edwards, and she has decided to spend much of her time working for universal health care for Americans. She has also said she and her husband want to dedicate their lives to fighting poverty. Let’s not hinder them.

Other things like jobs, labor rights, the collapse of our economy, and government bailouts are public matters to be discussed by all Americans. I don’t want to see working Americans treated like the workers in “third world countries”. John and Elizabeth Edwards are well aware of their short comings, but they also know how to fight and work for the American people.
Watch the video of John, Elizabeth and their two youngest children at work restoring a home in New Orleans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itn6xVOmR94&NR=1

I leave you with this quote from Senator John Edwards:
“It’s not in how many times you fall down, what matters is how many times you
get back up.”

Cherubim returned to the above story on April 2 2009.
Steph what you wrote is so very true.
To day is Ampril 2, 2009 very soon it will be
tax time again. However, I am sure the IRS is already investigated whether she paid taxes on
the money she has already extorted.

Rielle may be about to find out:
“What goes around, comes around.”
I hope Rielle Hunter gets what she deserves.

Steph said,in December 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am

“Hunter has an important date coming . . . April 15th. That is the day she has to report all the financial support she has received this year as income and pay taxes on it. The IRS shows no mercy and they are certainly aware of the huge amount of money she has been given. So having blown through all that cash is going to come back to bite her big time. The IRS has enormous power against which people have little recourse. If she thought she is playing hardball, she’s going to find out what hardball really is!”



Cherubim comment on John Edwards Scandal Cover-up: Three Carefully-Coordinated Statements?:

"I think when Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with Cancer, John became a man with fear and pain. I think the affair resulted because he wanted to forget and live without pain. For those who hate John Edwards know this he is in more pain now than he ever has been, and he will still most likely lose his wife, Elizabeth to cancer. As it stands, now, only the New World Order Corporations benefit. I hope that, soon, John and Elizabeth will return to help us with the fight to obtain universal health coverage and end poverty. What would Jesus Christ say? Answer: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”"

To which this author replied:

Cherubim,

I’m in no position to speculate what Jesus would say; however, elsewhere in the Bible, it does admonish, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” or “bear false witness”.

Thanks for taking the time to stop by, read and comment.



MORE CHERUBIM COMMENTS



[ABOVE: John Edwards' parents look on as he signs another autograph at a gathering at Chapel Hill NC on December 30 2006. Rielle Hunter is still in attendance. Both John and Elizabeth Edwards later released highly-parsed statements that misled the public into thinking that the affair was dead by the date above.]


"All this current sanctimonious crap being broadcast in the media disgusts me. What is important is what John and Elizabeth fought for during the campaign: universal health care and an end to poverty in America. These are goals worth fighting for. When they are ready to resume the fight, I’ll be willing to stand beside them."
--Cherumbim August 27 2008 on John Edwards Scandal: Mainstream Press Sticking to Schieffer Standard

The “Saving Graces” paperback was published officially on Aug. 14, 2007.

Elizabeth Edwards writes:

“It is hard to describe the test of public life, the way people believe — to some degree correctly — that you belong to them. There are awful examples, of course, of those whose motives are selfish or not admirable, who pry their way into the lives of public people in order to exploit a kindness or a generous gesture. They are to be endured and, to some extent I largely chose to ignore, feared. They remind me of a more malicious version of the people who wandered into our house in Annapolis, walking around our living room, putting their hands on our things. It is a sad fact that these people are a threat to anyone with even the smallest amount of celebrity.”
---Cherubim comment, September 10 2008 on John Edwards Scandal: Fox News Gives New Edwards’ Time Line



So.

Is Elizabeth Edwards really "Cherubim"?

We don't know. We only have suspicions raised over the last 18-20 months and today's assertion that the NY Daily News has a source that states that she is.

It's a question for all of God's angels.

Including the odd Cherubim.


by Mondo Frazier

images:
* peaceinspire.com
* DBKP file
* DBKP file





Sunday, December 14, 2008

AP Notices Obama Refusal to Answer Questions about Blagovich, Rahm Emanuel



Your Ad Here


Obama, Chicago and Blagojevich:
The Media Asks Questions--After the Election







The AP is Curious About Obama


The AP thinks it's a story when Barack Obama refuses to answer any questions.

That the former junior senator from Illinois didn't have to answer many during the campaign might have something to do with his present stance.


President-elect Barack Obama is refusing to answer any questions about the internal review he has ordered into Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged efforts to sell his former Senate seat, saying he will do so when the examination is finished.

Obama's staff has declined to respond to even basic questions, like who is conducting the probe, how long it will take, what issues are being explored and whether they are working with federal investigators. Obama has promised transparency throughout his service and to divulge contacts his staff has had with Blagojevich's office in the coming days. But his staff has locked down on inquiries in the meantime.

The Obama transition team's refusal to talk has contributed to a maelstrom around Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago congressman likely to have been in contact with the governor, who was arrested this week in a corruption scandal. But Emanuel is not a target of the probe, according to people who have been briefed on the investigation.


Barack Obama, international man of mystery lists 51 things that we do know about Obama, including the fascinating facts that the President-elect enjoys Scrabble and poker.



ALSO at DBKP:
* Who is Barack Obama?
Over 60 stories on the unreleased records, citizenship questions and murky past that the Mainstream Media didn't think newsworthy during the campaign.
* Obama’s Rezko Ties: Cook County Clerk’s Office Lists Attorney as Owner Of Obama Chicago Home
Obama doesn't own his home?
* Obama Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Chicago Home Mortgage $903,000 over Legal Limit
Obama Fun Financing Facts!



Obama supporters may become confused about the Mainstream Media's new-found curiosity over the president-elect. What's all of the chatter about? Didn't Obama say that he didn't know anything?

That answer seemed to work just fine during the primaries and general election. Why won't that answer satisfy the press now?

As RidesAPaleHorse points out, the latest revelations from Chicago may become "Senategate"--or just the World's Largest Dog & Pony Show.


by Mondo Frazier
image: RidesAPaleHorse




Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Obama Birth Certificate: Status of Major Court Cases



Your Ad Here


Obama Birth Certificate:
Status of Major Lawsuits

December 3 2008

Who is Barack Obama?

Court Cases Challenging Obama Citizenship:
Berg, Martin, Denofrio, Wrotnowski


Courtesy: What's Your Evidence?




Berg
(PA Federal Court)
Martin
(HI State Court)
Donofrio
(NJ State Court)
Wrotnowski
(CT State Court)







Berg Case (Pennsylvania Federal Court)
August 21, 2008 Berg files Complaint: Berg v. Obama, DNC, and FEC (Case No. 2:2008cv04083) in Federal District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Justia Docket)

Berg files Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And For Expedited Discovery
August 22, 2008 ORDER: Judge Surrick denies Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery
September 9, 2008 Berg files Motion To Expedite Discovery, Extensive Discovery And Appoint A Special Master
September 24, 2008 DNC/Obama file Motion To Dismiss Complaint
September 29, 2008 Berg files Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
October 6, 2008 Berg files Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint

DNC/Obama file Motion For Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss
October 9, 2008 Berg files Opposition to Motion For Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss
October 20, 2008 DNC/Obama file Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
October 21, 2008 Berg files Motion For Order Deeming Requests For Admissions - Admitted and Motion for Expedited Ruling re: same.

FEC files Motion to Dismiss Complaint
October 22, 2008 Berg files Motion For Summary Judgment and Motion for Expedited Ruling re: same.
October 24, 2008 ORDER: Judge Surrick Issues Memorandum And Order Granting DNC/Obama/FEC Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Berg lacks Standing to Sue under Article II of the Constitution.
October 27, 2008 ORDER: Judge Surrick Issues Order dismissing all pending motions as moot in light of Motion to Dismiss.
October 30, 2008 3rd Circuit: Berg files Notice Of Appeal to Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

3rd Circuit: Berg files Notice of Appeal, Case is Docketed. (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

3rd Circuit: Berg files Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008 Pending Resolution of Appeal (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

SCOTUS: Berg files "Rule 11" Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari Before Judgment Filed. (SCOTUS Docket)
October 31, 2008 3rd Circuit: DNC/Obama file Response to Appellant's Emergency Motion for Injunction (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

3rd Circuit: FEC files Response to Appellant's Emergency Motion for Injunction (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

3rd Circuit: ORDER Denying Emergency Motion for Injunction: "For the reasons ably expressed by the District Court and not addressed in Plaintiff-Appellant's Emergency Motion it appears that Plaintiff-Appellant lacks standing to challenge Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff-Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal, filed." Panel No.: ECO-9. Ambro, Authoring Judge." (Judges Ambro and Jordan) (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

SCOTUS: Berg files Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. (Docket # 08A391) (SCOTUS Docket)
November 3, 2008 SCOTUS: Berg files Supplemental Brief. (SCOTUS Docket)

SCOTUS: ORDER: Justice Souter denies Berg's Application (08A391) (SCOTUS Docket)
November 14, 2008 3rd Circuit: Berg files several required papers for appeal, including Concise Summary Of The Case and Civil Information Sheet. (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)

3rd Circuit: Court Clerk issues letter to Berg and Respondants requesting required information by December 2, 2008 (PACER Docket (paid subscription required; search for Case # 08-4340)
November 18, 2008 SCOTUS: US Solicitor General files Waiver of Right of Respondents (FEC, DNC, Obama) to respond to Writ Petition. (For sample of Waiver Form, see here.).










Back to Top

Martin Case (Hawaii State Court)
October 17, 2008 Martin files complaint for declaratory judgment (Docket - Document List (Requires Login; Search for Case No. 1CC08-1-002147))
October 21, 2008 HI SCt: Martin files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Hawaii Supreme Court. (Citizenwells)
October 22, 2008 HI SCt: ORDER: Supreme Court denies Martin's Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Hawaii SCT Orders)
October 30, 2008 Martin files Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause; Court sets hearing on Complaint for November 18, 2008. (Docket - Document List)
November 5, 2008 Defendants file Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Docket - Document List)

Defendants file Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time For Hearing On Motion To Dismiss Complaint For Declaratory Judgment (Docket - Document List)

ORDER: Court grants Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing, sets hearing for November 18, 2008
November 10, 2008 Defendants file Memorandum in Opposition to Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause. (Docket - Document List)
November 17, 2008 Plaintiff files Memorandum of Law In Support of Order To Show Cause and In Opposition To Motion Filed By Attorney General (Docket - Document List)
November 18, 2008 Hearing on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

ORDER: Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause; Granting Motion to Dismiss.

[PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE]

This Court treated the emergency motion for order to show cause as a motion seeking emergency injunctive relief as plaintiff was seeking to obtain the birth records for president Obama.

First, the Court points out that the issuance of a preliminary injunction seeks extraordinary relief. In Hawaii, a 3 prong test is applied in determining whether preliminary injunctive relief should be granted as stated in Life of the Land v Ariyoshi, 59 Haw. 156 (1978). The 3 elements are:

1. Is the plaintiff likely to prevail on the merits?

2. Does the balance of irreparable harm favor the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief, and

3. Does the public interest support the granting of the injunctive relief sought?

After reviewing the pleadings, the motion for order to show cause, the memoranda opposing the motion, the exhibits, and other written submissions, and considering the arguments of counsel and plaintiff, pro se, the Court finds as follows:

Based on the limited amount of evidence presented, the Court finds that it is unlikely that plaintiff will prevail on the merits as it appears that the plaintiff does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely the birth certificate of President Obama. Plaintiff also does not fall within the category of persons who may be entitled to the records as enumerated in HRS 338-18(b). In addition, HRS 92-13 provides that disclosure of government records is not required which, pursuant to state law, are protected from disclosure.

Regarding the second element of irreparable harm, the Court finds that plaintiff has not presented any evidence to this Court that irreparable harm will occur if the records are not provided to the plaintiff.

In addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the public interest supports the granting of the relief sought and there is a reasonable belief that the public would rather preserve the confidentiality of vital health records.

Therefore, the emergency motion to show cause is denied. Defendants' counsel to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS]

In addition, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for the reasons stated in the prior ruling as well as for the reasons raised in the motion and supporting memoranda, including lack of standing and insufficient service of process on the defendants.

Defendants' counsel to prepare order.


It is hereby ordered that the Minute Order Issued on november 19, 2008 shall be corrected as follows: The citation for the case life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, should read 59 HAW 156, 577 P.2d 1116 (1978).

All references to President Obama shall be deleted and replaced with President-Elect Obama.

(Docket - Court Minutes List > Court Minute Text)

November 25, 2008 (?) Martin files Motion for Reconsideration (Reportedly;
Not yet in docket, unless this is the Dec 1. document, noted below.
December 1, 2008 Martin (?) Files Emergency Motion to Show Cause. (Docket - Court Minutes List)
Note: This docket entry may be the Motion for Reconsideration, noted above. THe document on Mr. Martin's site is dated Nov. 25, which was Thanksgiving.












Back to Top

Donofrio Case (New Jersey State Court)
October 27, 2008 Donofrio files Emergent Application in NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division (Judge Sabatino) (Source)
October 29, 2008 Defendants (NJ Sec'y of State Nina Mitchell Wells) File Answer to Emergent Application (Source)
October 30, 2008 ORDER: Judge Sabatina (Superior Court) denies Emergent Application (Source)
October xx, 2008: Donofrio files Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief with NJ Supreme Court (Motion)
October 31, 2008: ORDER: NJ Supreme Court Denies Emergent Application (Order)
November 3, 2008

SCOTUS: Donofrio files Application for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. (Docket # 08A407) (SCOTUS Docket)

November 6, 2008 SCOTUS: ORDER: Application denied by Justice Souter. (SCOTUS Docket)
November 14, 2008 SCOTUS: Donofrio refiles Application; submits to Justice Thomas. (SCOTUS Docket)
November 19, 2008 SCOTUS: Application distributed for Conference, December 5, 2008 (SCOTUS Docket)










Back to Top

Wrotnowski Case (Connecticut State Court) (Incomplete)
October 31, 2008 Cort Wrotnowski files suit against Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz (See Judge Dismisses Obama Birth Certificate Challenge, New York Post November 3, 2008)
November 3, 2008 ? Second case filed (per SOS Nov. 26 Letter)
November 3-5, 2008 (?) Hearing before CT Superior Court; Connecticut AG submits opinion to Connecticut Supreme Court (per SOS Nov. 26 Letter)
November 5, 2008 ORDER: State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers dimisses case after testimony from SOS attorneys and Connecticut AG Blumenthal, and Greenwich resident testimony from SOS attorneys and Connecticut AG Blumenthal, and Greenwich resident. (per SOS Nov. 26 Letter)
November 25, 2008 Wrotnowski files application/injunction in US Supreme Court (Justice Ginsberg). (SCOTUS Docket)
November 26, 2008 Justice Ruth Ginsburg denies Wrotnowski's application for stay. (SCOTUS Docket)
December 1, 2008 (reportedly) Wrotnowski resubmits application to Justice Scalia.
















Back to Top

Keyes Case (California State Court) (Incomplete)
November 13, 2008 Keyes (et al) file Writ of Mandate (Court Case Index - Case No. 2008-80000096)
"Information about pending or recently concluded civil cases ... can be obtained by calling the Civil Division at 916-874-5522," (Source)














Back to Top







ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions




* Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?
* Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?
* Obama Birth Certificate: WND, Kenya and African Press Internatl
* Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Story Heats up at World Net Daily
* Obama Birth Certificate, Citizenship: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records
* Obama Birth Certificate: Ruling in Berg v. Obama Expected In Next Two Days- UPDATED
* Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit: Obama, DNC Fail to Respond-UPDATED
* Washington Man Files Lawsuit over Obama Citizenship Questions
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation



Compiled by What's Your Evidence?
images: dbkp file




Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?



Your Ad Here


Obama Birth Certificate:
Who Determines Constitutional Eligibility?





The 20th Amendment:
The Mechanism for Determining Presidential Eligibility





Questions, questions, questions.

The birth certificate of Barack Obama: is he eligible to serve as president of the USA? Who or what determines the answer to that question?

The issues surrounding the birth certificate and Barack Obama's citizenship questions continue. Some had speculated that these questions might go away after the election.

But they haven't.

In fact, a number of lawsuits have been filed asking the courts to determine the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President. Are the courts the right place to be asking?

What procedures--if any--determine and ensure the eligibility of an incoming president?

Who's in charge of determining eligibility of a presidential candidate?

For the folks in New Jersey, is it the NJ secretary of state, as posited by Leo C. Denofrio of Denofrio v. Wells?

Is it the Democratic Party, as put forth in Berg v. Obama? Is it Congress? Is it the Supreme Court?

We asked our favorite fact checker at What's Your Evidence if she couldn't find some information on the process--if there is a process--for determining exactly who is eligible for the office of President of the United States of America.

Here's what she found out.

[Starts below.]



ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions




* Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?
* Obama Birth Certificate: WND, Kenya and African Press Internatl
* Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Story Heats up at World Net Daily
* Obama Birth Certificate, Citizenship: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records
* Obama Birth Certificate: Ruling in Berg v. Obama Expected In Next Two Days- UPDATED
* Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit: Obama, DNC Fail to Respond-UPDATED
* Washington Man Files Lawsuit over Obama Citizenship Questions
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation





The folks arguing that a court should address this issue, are essentially arguing as follows:

"We DEMAND that you, the Courts

ignore the Constitutional limitations on your jurisdiction, and

ignore the Constitutional procedure for determining a President's eligibility,

in order to

"protect the Constitution" (????) by ruling on whether the Constitutional requirement re: a President's eligibility has been established.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART I: STANDING

First. With all due respect, the fact that – like McCain before him – Obama asked the court to follow well-established Constitutional precedent generates suspicion and the belief that "he must be hiding something" ONLY with people who do not understand the most simple fundamentals of basic legal procedure. Again, the irony. The foundation of the .. Berg et al argument, is:

"We DEMAND that you ignore the Constitutional limitation on your jurisdiction - i.e., the Constitutional requirement for standing in order to rule on the Constitutional requirement for eligibility."

This is, quite simply, a facially illogical argument.

To reiterate – McCain was sued at least twice earlier this year on eligibility grounds. (Hollander and Robinson) In both cases, his first responsive pleading was to allege lack of standing.

Was HE hiding something? NO.

He (or his lawyers) was following the most basic of legal procedures – based on the fundamental Constitutional principle that a person must have standing to sue on a Constitutional issue.

Second. The Berg Case (upon which all other cases are based to at least some extent) – did not involve a "simple and inexpensive request." Indeed, Berg made crystal clear in multiple radio interviews that even if Obama produced the original birth certificate in court, with affidavit, he would NOT drop the case because there were so many other issues to be resolved (Indonesia, etc.).

(Now – I've heard, from multiple people who have bought into this rumor – that "well, might not resolve it for Berg, but would resolve it for me," ... who then go on to raise multiple additional questions showing that .. it would resolve, at most, say # 49 on their 50-item lists of questions. It is disingenuous at best.

Moreover, again, producing it in one case (with the required affidavit authenticating it) may well be relatively inexpensive (though not the $10 everyone says – there is a COST to getting the affidavits – in drafting them (attorney time); in getting Hawaii official to sign (admin costs to be paid to state), etc.)

Third, re: "with such great effort." Again. To say that filing a standard 12(b)(6) motion re: standing takes "great effort," is to be ignorant of basic legal procedures. Most firms have standard templates for this, and the motion is very simple (and inexpensive) to draft.

Moreover, because a standing argument is – BY LAW – REQUIRED to be raised as the first responsive pleading to a case, in order to preserve the defense, an attorney who failed to do that would be, essentially, committing malpractice. (Of course, if for some reason, the plaintiff WANTED to be sued, that'd be another story – but that's .. uhm .. highly unusual. Here, had Obama ignored the standing issue in order to produce the certificate, he would have had to then respond to every other of Berg's crazy allegations. (To reiterate – he could not "ignore" standing as to COLB, but assert it as to other claims – either standing exists – or it doesn't.)


PART II: CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION PROCEDURE



Question

The second argument ...

"We DEMAND that you, the Courts ignore the Constitutional procedure for determining a President's eligibility"

... is equally problematic.

I've addressed the first "ignore," above -- i.e., the irony that people are simply OUTRAGED that the Berg Court -- like the Hollander Court, the Robinson Court, and countless courts before them – refused to ignore the fundamental Constitutional requirement (established by 200+ years of Supreme Court precedent) that a person have standing to bring a Constitutional claim. With all due respect, you just can't have it both ways. If you seek judicial assessment, you have to follow by the judicial rules of procedure. Assessment of substance can not be done in any reliable fashion without compliance with established procedures.

The bigger irony to me – most especially when I see conservatives arguing for judicial intervention – is that the Berg folks are essentially asking the court to usurp the Constitutionally-established process for determining this Constitutionally-established requirement. It's like saying that in order to uphold the Constitution, you must deny this person accused of some gruesome murder – the Constitutional right to a trial by jury. It's just crazy.

As the Court in Robinson v. Sec. of State, et al (the second 2008 McCain Case) described so well, the Constitution, and enabling statutes – clearly set forth the proper procedure for addressing this requirement:

"Article II prescribes that each state shall appoint, in the manner directed by the state’s legislature, the number of presidential electors to which it is constitutionally entitled. The Twelfth Amendment prescribes the manner in which the electors appointed by the states shall in turn elect the president:

"[t]he electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . . and they shall . . . transmit [their votes] sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."

Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15 directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then "announce the state of the vote." Ibid. The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

"[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision."

Ibid. The Twentieth Amendment further provides,

"if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify

. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300–02 (1998).

======== ======== ======== ======== ========

Question

Now – the one thing the Robinson court did not address in legal detail (and was not required to do so, but .. necessary for this discussion) – was how electors are decided.

The Constitution does not address how electors are selected and how they vote. That is determined by enabling statutes. And, per the 10th Amendment, that decision is left up to the states.

Under current state law (all 50 states) electors are determined by the popular vote in the given, individual state. As these laws are not inconsistent with the Constitution, but rather are "enabling" statutes – they are part of the "constitutional process."

Thus ... the Constitutionally-prescribed process, as enabled by appropriate state and federal statute, is as follows:

1. WE THE PEOPLE VOTE.

We, the People, have the RIGHT to vote for our candidate of choice. As the Robinson court noted, "Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election."

Here, we see that that process worked quite well. Dozens of websites, claiming tens of millions of visitors, proclaimed that Obama was not eligible. News media investigated these claims. Some (interestingly, conservative media) – reported on them, essentially refuting them. Other media never reported on the claim because their investigation determined the claims to be bogus.

However, thanks to the same internet that enabled each one of us to look at Obama's COLB, each interested voter was able to read scores and scores of articles arguing that Obama was not eligible ... that Obama was hiding something .. that Obama had not proved his eligibility.. yada yada yada.

Then, they voted.

Clearly, the majority of Voters – the people constitutionally entrusted with making this "qualification determination" in the first instance – made their determination that Obama is eligible for the Presidency. Clearly, the "jury" – i.e., the majority of voters were satisfied with the evidence provided.

2. OUR DECISION IS TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS VIA THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE

Next up, the electoral college vote, based on Article II, to the Congress.

3. CONGRESS ACCEPTS VOTE; ADDRESSES QUALIFICATIONS ISSUE

Next, Congress accepts the electoral college vote, and confirms that the elected President qualifies, pursuant to the 20th Amendment, and, pursuant to that same amendment, takes necessary action if the President is not qualified. 3 U.S.C. 15. sets forth the procedures for raising and resolving any objections on the qualifications issue (as quoted in Robinson excerpt, above).

Thus, essentially, Congress has been entrusted by the Constitution – to be the "judge and jury" of this issue.

THIS – is the Constitutional process. So long as this process is followed, whatever result ensues is the "law of the land." By operation of law, Obama will be deemed eligible for the President – in the same way that by operation of law, Bush II was deemed our elected President after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gore v. Bush.

(Aside: Thus, those worried about the coming "constitutional crisis" are ... uhm .. missing the point. That's like saying the entire first Bush II administration was conducted under a constitutional crisis, because so many people fundamentally disagreed with the results in Gore v. Bush. Like it or not, it was the law of the land. By operation of law, applied constitutionally, Bush was our President. Assuming Congress affirms the vote, addresses any objections properly raised, and declares him qualified, Obama will be our next President.)

To advocate that a court step in somehow – and usurp this clearly established Constitutional process – is .... beyond the pale.




Question

As for as the claim that some have made -- i.e., "It should be the duty of ... some ... authoritative body to confirm citizenship."

As noted above, it IS the duty of an "authoritative body" – the US Congress. Clearly established in the Constitution.

That being said – what may well change in the future are the individual state laws governing required "paperwork" for declaring one's candidacy. It appears that some states require the party to file an affidavit (under oath, etc.) that their candidate would be eligible, if elected; other states require the candidate to file such affidavit that s|he would be eligible; and still others don't even ask about that, determining that it is the party's duty to obtain such confirmation.

This is understandable, given the Constitutional process already in place to confirm eligibility before permitting the elected President to actually take office (as described above).

That being said, as reported by Jeff Schreiber re: a PA legislator, I expect that some states may modify their laws to require the candidate to submit, with the affidavit, some sort of documentary proof.

HOWEVER – even then, requiring anything more than the legally-recognized COLB would surely be unconstitutional.

Thus, even if all 2008 state laws had a legal requirement that a candidate provide documentary proof of citizenship, Obama would have "met" that requirement with 50 copies of a certified Hawaii COLB.





Check the facts on Berg v. Obama: What's Your Evidence?



So, the basic safeguards are outlined in the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.

Does this answer all the questions?

Does this answer any of the questions?

We're sure readers will let us know.

[SPECIAL THANKS to What's Your Evidence? for preparing the above answers and facts about the 20th Amendment.]


by Mondo Frazier
Source: What's Your Evidence?
images: dbkp file




Wednesday, November 26, 2008

MORNING INTELL: USA Breakup, Obama Citizenship, Brr...Climate Change



Your Ad Here


BLOGOSPHERE NEWS:
November 26 2008


dbkp inside

THE SCOOP:
* The USA Breaking into Pieces?
* Obama Citizenship Issues not Going Away
* Ho's Get the Heave
* Global Warming...Brr!
* Washington State Judge Yelled "Tyrant" Before Mulkasey Collapsed






USA SPLITTING APART into SIX REGIONS?












  1. Kenyan Ambassador now says he misspoke.
    Embassy: Obama not born in Kenya. The Kenyan rep says he made a mistake when he was asked about the President-elect and was referring to Obama's father.

  2. More evidence of American's litigious nature?
    Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed
    Orders from new president to spark lawsuit every time
    A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state's 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved says he's organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama.
    "We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today.

  3. The Fox or the Chickens?
    Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?
  4. Is Hillary Clinton Constitutionally barred to Serve as Secretary of State?
    Matthew Berger: "Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year. Even if it is lowered back down, constitutional scholars say that may not be enough to fix the problem."
    Berger posits that perhaps Clinton's Senate colleagues will have the good manners not to bring up the Constitution unpleasantness--if it comes to that.

  5. Bringing up whether Obama is constitutionally qualified is a legitimate issue.
    AMERICAN THINKER: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
    The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.

    HYSCIENCE: 'Joe the Farmer': Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
    So far, the Mainstream press has had the good manners not to bring up any Constitutional unpleasantness. The Constitution seems to matter only for the ill-mannered these days: whether in the Senate or the MSM.
  6. REPRISE: Obama Birth Certificate: WND, Kenya and African Press Internatl







MORNINGMANIA




by Mondo Frazier
images: hyscience; dbkp file




Monday, November 24, 2008

Obama Birth Certificate: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5



Your Ad Here



Denofrio Vs. Wells
Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizenship Questions

Justice Clarence Thomas: Distributed Leo C. Denofrio’s renewed application For Conference on December 5




IF Four of the Nine Justices Favor Review, A Hearing will Be Held




WILL SCOTUS VET OBAMA?
McCain, Colero Also Challenged

Three candidates for U.S. President and none of the three were eligible--one of the candidates wasn't and has never been a citizen of the United States?

What's up with that?

Leo C. Denofrio of New Jersey wants to know.

Denofrio (who has had his named spelled "Denofrio" and "Donofrio" in a wide array of stories) has challenged the legality of three candidates that appeared on the New Jersey ballot for U.S. president: Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.

And he makes good arguments that none are qualified to serve as president.

Denofrio has offered up the U.S. Constitution, New Jersey law, the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, and other laws as the basis for his case.

Denofrio began his case in New Jersey against New Jersey Secretary of State (SOS) Nina Mitchell Wells. The case is now one step away from a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit is just one of many that sprung up challenging the constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama, John McCain or both, to serve as U.S. president.

On November 19, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas distributed Denofrio's renewed application (for a stay of the 2008 election) for conference on December 5.

The Supreme Court wouldn't be anxious to involve itself in another US election, but it wouldn't have to--IF the individual secretaries of state had fulfilled their duties. Three other justices would have to join Thomas in requesting a hearing.

Four of the nine SCOTUS justices have to favor review for a hearing on the matter to be scheduled.

Donofrio's first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. The rules of the court, however, allow for a renewed submission to a justice of the petitioner's choice.

From a highly-informative Linda Bentley article, Justice Thomas distributes Obama case for conference:



ALSO at DBKP:
The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Obama Record, Another Question
* Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?
* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records



Beginning in October, Denofrio made his way up through the ranks of the courts until his constitutional question as to the meaning of “natural born citizen” reached the Supreme Court.

He submitted an application for an emergency stay to prohibit the use of what he called “defective ballots” in the state of New Jersey because they contained ineligible candidates for the office of President of the United States, and asked that the court order New Jersey Secretary of State (SOS) Nina Mitchell Wells to remove the names of Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero from New Jersey ballots.

According to Denofrio, the three candidates are not “natural born citizens,” as required by the Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.

Leo Denofrio contends Obama, even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, having been born with split and competing loyalties, is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.”

Denofrio contacted the New Jersey SOS Elections Division on Oct. 22 to determine what steps the SOS had taken to determine whether any of the presidential candidates listed on the New Jersey ballots were eligible for the office.

He was informed by Elections Manager Donna Barber the SOS took no steps to determine eligibility and assumed eligibility based only upon the fact they had been nominated.

However, New Jersey statute requires Wells to make a “statement” wherein she certifies, under her hand and official seal of office, the names … “of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”


So the Secretary of State is required to vet candidates to determine if they're qualified--and then admits no such vetting occurred?

What's up with that?

On Oct. 23, Denofrio spoke to Barber, who again informed him she had no reason to object to such party nominations and the statutory deadline for objections had passed. Barber specifically stated the Elections Division would not change ballots at such a late date.

Denofrio says New Jersey voters must rely upon the SOS to safeguard the integrity of their electoral process, especially during presidential cycles “when she must be most vigilant of her oath of office.”

If the SOS doesn’t protect the citizens of New Jersey, Denofrio states it is then up to the citizens to command Wells to do so.

As a result of Wells’ “misfeasance,” Denofrio says the state’s ballots contain the names of three presidential candidates who are not, “by law entitled,” to hold the office of President of the United States.

Denofrio states McCain was born in Panama, Calero was born in Nicaragua and Obama’s birthplace has not been verified.

He asks, “If the SOS’s role is clerical, then who is responsible for Roger Calero appearing on the ballots?”





Just how good of a job did the New Jersey Secretary of State do fulfilling her duties of office?

Colero isn't even a citizen of the United States and appeared on the New Jersey ballot for president of the U.S.--an office which he was constitutionally unqualified to hold.

NJSOS Wells would seem to be in clear violation of her oath of office to ensure that candidates are "qualified".


Calero, born in Nicaragua, not only is not a “natural born citizen,” he isn’t even a citizen. He’s a resident alien who also appeared on numerous state ballots during the 2004 presidential election.

While the Socialist Workers Party was somehow qualified to place its candidate on the ballot in 10 states, five of those states refused to list Caldero on their ballots because he is not constitutionally qualified and substituted candidate James Harris, a “surrogate nominee.”


The story goes on to point out that "Denofrio also quotes a section from the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which states, “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

"The Foreign Affairs Manual also addresses the issue of eligibility for president as such: “It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Denofrio cites 8 USC 1402(a): that McCain may claim his citizenship because of the statute. But does that make McCain a "natural born citizen"?

Denofrio states, “McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute.”

Extremely interesting.

Denofrio offers more evidence that his case has merits.

Denofrio states, “… had the U.S. legislature intended to grant ‘natural born citizen’ status to all who were born on U.S. soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words ‘natural born citizen,’ but it doesn’t … McCain was born in Panama. Panama is not considered U.S. soil, nor has it ever been considered as such.”

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated, “… the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens ...”

However, Denofrio points out the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically repealed the 1790 act and replaced it with the same clause except with the words “natural born” deleted.




So Calero is not even a US citizen and he appeared on the NJ ballot.

John McCain, though he served his country and is a citizen by federal statute, wasn't constitutionally-qualified to serve as president.

And Obama?

Denofrio: "Obama has not been presented with a legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore has no legal responsibility to produce one."

"[S]ince candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of president since he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the Constitution.”

In conclusion Denofrio states had the legislature intended to grant “natural born citizen” status to all who were born on U.S. soil, the 14th Amendment would contain the words “natural born citizen.”


Will Denofrio's petition get the necessary support to command a hearing?

Does his petition have merit?

Did the NJ Secretary of State fulfill her obligations under the law to ensure that only qualified candidates appear on the ballot? One candidate--Calero--clearly was not qualified to appear on the NJ ballot.

Were there others?

How many other Secretaries of State "assumed" that the candidates were qualified--instead of "ensured" they were qualified?

We'll know more about this in the coming weeks, it seems.

In the meantime, what of Leo C. Denofrio?

He's used to tension: he retired from law to enter the ranks of professional poker players.



ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions


* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records
* Obama Birth Certificate: Ruling in Berg v. Obama Expected In Next Two Days- UPDATED
* Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit: Obama, DNC Fail to Respond-UPDATED
* Washington Man Files Lawsuit over Obama Citizenship Questions
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation





by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file