About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view PatHenry's profile
    Posted December 11, 2008 by
    New London, Connecticut
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    iReport for CNN

    More from PatHenry


    SEPERATING THE FACTS FROM THE FICTION REGARDING LEO DONOFRIO AND SCOTUS LAWSUIT "WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ". WHY THE ISSUES RAISED ARE LEGITIMATE AND FAR FROM THE FRIVILOUS NATURE OF OTHER LEGAL EFFORTS. The following was initially written as a generic Editorial Reply to the large number of incorrect Editorials and articles I have read in various publications regarding the Supreme Court cases commonly referred to as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Donofrio v. Wells. I, as any American should, place my faith and loyalty in our Founding Fathers and the Constitution first and our elected and government officials a distant second. We are a Nation of laws and no individual is above the law - not even the President; not even the president-elect. It is shameful that various news organizations which are allegedly in the business of collecting, verifying and reporting facts attempt to dismiss those of us concerned with Barrack Obama's citizenship status as a lying, unprincipled - even delusional - lot. Admittedly there is, in fact, a fringe element involved in the Obama citizenship issue. Rather than separating the facts from the fiction, so-called news organizations have instead chosen to further confuse and mislead the public. In effect, many news organization's official editorial positions are no better than the fringe element they attempt to dismiss, often by name calling. For reasons unbeknownst to me, the fringe element has caught the attention and imagination of mainstream media, while those forwarding factual, legitimate concerns have been obscured and mitigated. Two such factual, legitimate efforts are the lawsuits filed by New Jersey's Leo Donofrio and Connecticut's Cort Wrotnowski. The fact that three Presidential candidates could get this far into the National Election without being properly exposed is prima fascia evidence that the dominance of the two-party system has been pervasively damaging to our Constitutional Republic. Additionally, there has been extreme confusion; some would say ignorance, pertaining to the differences inherent between being a 'citizen' and a 'natural born citizen'. Mr. Donofrio, the attorney that filed Donofrio v. Wells with the Supreme Court, filed his initial lawsuit in NJ Appellate Court on October 27th, 2008. This came a month after Donofrio made his initial inquiry to the New Jersey Secretary of the State, Virginia Wells, as to why she had certified the New Jersey ballot which included Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. Though Mr. Calero had no reasonable chance of winning the election, Mr. Calero has made no secret that he was born in Nicaragua, to two non-United States nationals. In other words, Roger Calero, by his own admission has no business being on the NJ ballot. Mr. Donofrio had taken note of Calero's inclusion on the non-certified sample ballot that the NJ SOTS had published so that voters could familiarize themselves with it prior to certification. Donofrio called the NJ SOTS office and inquired into what verification process used to vet the Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidates before publishing and certifying the ballots. The NJ SOTS office admitted that it relied on the various political parties to verify eligibility before submitting the candidacy affidavits, meaning the NJ SOTS doesn't do ANYTHING to independently verify candidate eligibility. Mr. Donofrio, a lawyer, rightly chose to challenge this revelation in court. During the research he did before filing his initial case, it became apparent to Mr. Donofrio that not only is Mr. Calero Constitutionally ineligible, but so are Mr. Obama and Senator McCain. Why? How could this be the case? Here is the relevant passage from Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. The key phrase here is "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". The Founding Fathers included this phrase because virtually everyone was a British Subject at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In other words, the passage serves as a grandfather clause conferring 'natural born citizen' status to those who were ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. No where else in the Constitution does the phrase 'natural born citizen' appear. The Founding Fathers were very leery of a person with multiple allegiances becoming the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States. The only way to ensure this would not happen was to require something else that no other office in this country required . . . the status that our President be a 'natural born citizen'. That is, someone who at birth could claim only one allegiance. Thus a 'natural born citizen' is not the same as being a US born citizen. They are not an interchangeable terms of status. Mr. Donofrio's research revealed that no other President in the history of the United States was born to anything other than two United States citizens and on United States soil, except Chester A. Arthur and history shows he lied and misled his peers and the newspapers of the time about his Father's naturalization. In other words, Chester Arthur intentionally and successfully concealed the fact that he was not born to two US citizen parents. Arthur's mother was a US citizen; his father was a British subject . . . sound familiar? Mr. Donofrio's and Mr. Wrotnowski's cases acknowledge the fact that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. But Mr. Obama acknowledges on his very own website, FighttheSmears.org that he was born to one US Citizen Parent and one British Citizen Parent. Thus Mr. Obama was born with a dual allegiance and has never been, and can never be a 'natural born citizen'. Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party have knowingly deceived the public and avoided the fact that he is not legally qualified to serve as President. One must assume that Mr. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, has gone to great lengths to avoid the claim that he is a "natural born citizen". On the FightTheSmears.org website, Mr. Obama states that he is a "native born citizen", which, of course, is NOT the same as being a "natural born citizen". The term ‘native born citizen' does not appear in Article II. As you can now see, the concern that I share with millions of others who support the efforts of Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Wrotnowski has NOTHING TO DO WITH A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It is true that December 8th, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Donofrio v. Wells without comment however, that very same day the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia submitted Wrontowski v Bysiewicz to be Distributed for Conference this Friday, December 12, 2008. Mr. Donofrio worked with Mr. Wrotnowski and authored the formal filing with SCOTUS. Donofrio v Wells had some unsettled judicial misconduct issues that raised scrutiny questions if the Justices had elected to take that case on. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz has a pristine history in its ascension through the courts. Think about that for a moment folks . . . Donofrio v Wells was dismissed without comment, later that very same day Justice Scalia, the champion of Originalism, distributes Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz - a similar yet stronger case. If Scalia felt that Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz didn't have merit, he wouldn't have wasted the court's time by submitting it for Conference this Friday. Mr. Obama if finally pressed into defending his qualifications will likely resort to citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The problem is the 14th Amendment dealt with equal application of the law to United States Nationals and has no relevance to the specified qualifications needed to serve as President of the United States. Based on a literal reading of Article II and the historical context of the birth right of 43 preceding Presidents, Chester A. Arthur notwithstanding, it is clear that Barrack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and thus has no legal claim to take the Oath of office. To allow him to do so would be a farce and undoubtedly ignite an endless series of litigation challenging his legitimacy. NOTES REGARDING THE CONSPIRACY CASES: Though very little, there is merit to some of the birth certificate claims. Admittedly folks like Andy Martin and Phil Berg appear to have some mental issues. Hawaiian law most definitely allows foreign births to have a certificate filed: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm There is also a place on the Hawaiian vault birth certificate to enter data for Hospital, Doctor and "Evidence for delayed filing or alteration". In light of the ambiguous information that Obama has released and the fact that he unreasonably refuses to allow public inspection of his vault copy certificate it does reasonably raise and beg the question "why not?" That said, the issues surrounding his birth certificate are irrelevant because of all the reasons I have stated above - Barrack Obama is a US Citizen, but he is NOT a ‘natural born citizen' and thus has no authority to assume the office of the President.
    Add your Story Add your Story