DBKP - Worldwide Leader in Weird: certificate

Showing posts with label certificate. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Obama Birth Certificate: Status of Major Court Cases

Obama Birth Certificate:
Status of Major Lawsuits
December 3 2008

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.).

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.

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)

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.

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)

ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions

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

Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?

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

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

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).

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

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.

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

Monday, November 24, 2008

Obama Birth Certificate: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5

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.