You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Leo Donofrio’ tag.

The US Supreme Court Center at is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.


This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.

Natural Born Citizen ^


IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.

Last week, a reader of this blog tipped me off to an incredible misquote of Representative John Bingham which appears in an amicus brief [a PDF] filed with the US Supreme Court by the Immigration Reform Law Institute – aka IRLI – for the Flores-Villar case. Here is that tip in full:

“Sallyven Says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM e

In the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?

The comment was in response to articles I wrote – one which argued that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” requires a person to be born in the US to “parents” who are citizens – and the other highlighting the scrubbing of a Michigan Law Review article by a well known law professor which stated the same, but then was changed after the dual citizen issue began to haunt Obama.

My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives. One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

But the amicus brief filed by IRLI misquotes Bingham as follows:

The words “of parents” are mysteriously missing from the quote. I held back on posting Sallyven’s comment until today because I wanted to contact IRLI and question them about the error.

I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless). The staff attorney and I had a long conversation. The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:

1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles. Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog. Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney. But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.

3. IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context.

I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog. I directed him to my blog. At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified. Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on. But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago. I was then informed that…


Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308? That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent.

Well hey now. What have we here? The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility.

The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions. To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1. I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility. Obviously, that would take an amendment. But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.

Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference. Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.

I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.

He continued to assure me that the words “natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”. I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”. I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”. He told me that it wasn’t up to them. It was up to each state.

He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it. He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.

The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue. At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.

The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t. Yesterday marked a week with no response. I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back.

Something is very shady about this situation. The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation. This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease. The country is dying. It is being killed from within. If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.

If we accept that a person born with dual allegiance can be President, we are opening the White House to the potential children of despots who hate this nation. Preventing this kind of foreign influence was the “strong check” John Jay warned George Washington of all those years ago when he introduced the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

     James Anderer has appeared on several news broadcasts since the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings and the list of dealerhsips that the Obama White House wanted closed. Appearing on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto on Friday, Anderer announced that a new lawsuit would be filed in the DC Federal Courts:

Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner wrote a posting today having to do with how Chrysler and GM dealers lost their franchises practically overnight through what they saw as an unlawful federal government intrusion into the automotive industry (where some creditors alleged to have been threatened by the White House over the deal).

With this as a backdrop, Ms. Cotter quotes “an anonymous source” as saying that attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon, of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Broe v. Reed, respectively, have teamed up with certain dealers in DC District Court:

Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:

1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.

This case may initially slide under the MSM radar; however, it may be the single most serious case to be brought against The Obama Administration and the President himself to date.

The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course.  They now admit that they do –  in fact – make some vital records information available to the public.  This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that “no information” could be released.

You will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements – issued by DoH Director Fukino and DoH Communications Director Okubo – which indicated that state law forbid “any information” about Hawaii vital records from being released.  These rigid responses were issued despite the clear applicability of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) which requires the mandatory release of some information from vital records on file with the DoH.

Just after I released that report, the Post and Email blog detailed that another researcher who requested “index data” had received the same improper denial of access to that index data.  I blogged on that denial in my report entitled, “Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places her Thumb Directly In The Giants Eye.”

Behind the scenes, myself and two other members of my research team – KingsKid and Justin Riggs – have been issuing very specific UIPA requests.  And last night KingsKid received a response to her UIPA request from DoH Communications Director Okubo which exhibits a complete reversal of policy.


See Leo Donofrio’s full Post @

(thanks for the link)




By: Devvy
March 14, 2009
© 2008 –

Before I get into the how can we get this done, I would first like to make a statement to hopefully deflect an email box full of hate mail.

Please don’t misconstrue what I’m about to say as disparaging to any of the lawyers involved in these lawsuits. I have supported all of them and their efforts. I am not an attorney. I have no training in the law, but I can read and read I have. A million words in these lawsuits; the briefs as well as supporting documentation. That’s how I learn and hopefully make an informed decision. Not based on personalities, but what the law says.

Millions (not a thousand or a hundred thousand), but millions of Americans either know a lot about the Obama citizenship/birth certificate controversy or they know enough that it has raised serious questions in their mind.

Readers of this column and listeners to my radio show know that I have covered this extensively. They also know that I do not play favorites and would be fighting the same fight if McCain had allegedly been elected because McCain is also, in my opinion, constitutionally ineligible.

While some cases have received more attention than others, those receiving the most exposure have been cases filed by Phillip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Cort Wrotnoski, Stephen Pidgeon, Mario Apuzzo and the United States Justice Foundation. Dozens have been filed at the state level; too many to list here. Many of the cases have been brought by citizens and the rest by attorneys on behalf of their clients.

We are all aware of the outcome of those docketed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Denied with no comment on merit) and those that had at least a hearing of some sort in front of a judge. The issue of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka and so forth, is badly dividing this country. The frustration and rage is escalating. Every piece of legislation he signs into law brings the potential of lawsuits that would be never ending – possibly thousands of them. Not to mention the destructive policies Obama is shoving down our throats. However, the issue at hand is not political or racial, but a matter of constitutional law.

Thousands of citizens have been doing everything humanly possible to get the courts to hear these cases on their merits. Of course, this is more than just a political hot potato, it is a volcano that could erupt in a nasty way. That’s why the courts won’t touch it – what judge wants to be responsible for removing an usurper president? Do they even have the legal authority to do so? An important question.

The situation can’t continue with another lawsuit filed on Monday, four on Wednesday, maybe three the following week. Then comes the endless wait while the defendants respond and the legal wrangling begins. When those fail in seven or eight weeks, a new round of lawsuits gets filed and again, months go by while the defendants answer the lawsuit and file motions that could go on for years. Leo speaks highly of Mario Apuzzo’s case, Kerchner v Obama and we hope it has a successful outcome. Mr. Apuzzo’s web site is here.

Obama has controlled the birth certificate issue from day one. He continues to do so. This keeps all of us wondering, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. I think even to the most staunch Obama supporter, it’s obvious by now that Obama refuses to release his vault birth certificate because he has something to hide. Or, maybe not. Maybe Obama’s refusal is simply to keep everyone running around chasing lawsuits. Remember, he can pull it out for release to the media anytime he wants. Timing in life is everything as they say – especially in politics.

There is also the issue of possible criminal activity by Obama and this is addressed on Orly’s web site where she is petitioning Attorney General Eric Holder for a special prosecutor; click here.

What do we do to bring this to an end as quickly as possible? I believe Orly was the first to bring up the issue of Quo Warranto, but I’m not 100% certain. There is so much activity and web sites to comb through besides reading all these legal filings. In any event, there are outstanding lawsuits waiting to be processed through the system. Many state representatives, active military and veterans have signed up to become plaintiffs for a possible lawsuit being initiated by Orly. They are all listed on her web site. Orly has also sent a letter of request to AG Eric Holder to undertake a Quo Warranto, as well as a new filing with the U.S. Supreme Court; click here.

Both Orly and Leo Donofrio were guests on my radio show last week to help us understand these legal issues. In a recent column, I provided a link to Leo’s three part hypothetical brief on Quo Warranto; click here. I concur that a Quo Warranto in the District Court in Washington, DC, FIRST is the best path to take, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you read the statute (see Leo’s brief), even if AG Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor decline to proceed, there is still the opportunity to go forward. In Part 3 of Leo’s legal analysis, you will see where he gives the statute and who can have standing. This has been done successfully in the past when the AG and US Attorney have failed to act. We also have to remember that this will be a jury trial. My biggest concern is that an action taken straight to the U.S. Supreme Court – especially in light of the fact that the Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, met behind closed doors with Obama – would likely be shot down and we lose. Personally, I believe on the Quo Warranto issue, the U.S. Supreme Court should be last in line.

I know the knee jerk reaction to a jury trial in the District Court in Washington, DC, because I’ve already had email: “You’re dreaming, Devvy, if you think jurors in Washington, DC, who worship the Messiah are going to do the right thing.” My response is to let the system work and do not underestimate the integrity of the American people when presented with solid facts. That statute is perfect for this issue. It is up to the AG and the U.S. Attorney to bring an action on behalf of the United States. No plaintiffs. Should they refuse, then the “third persons” or “interested persons” part kicks in and we proceed from there.

Many, many Americans have been forwarding their letters of request to Holder the past couple of weeks; Orly has been posting them to her web site. Thank you to all the people who wrote letters to Richard Durbin. Every one counts. We know that hundreds of thousands have signed petitions to the courts. If hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life sent their polite requests to Holder and Taylor (including all those state legislators), something has to give. A small flame can turn into a huge fire if fanned properly.


This pdf file is my certified letter to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor. I provided a copy to Richard Durbin at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Austin, Texas and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. That pdf file also contains Leo Donofrio’s letter of March 13, 2009, to U.S. Attorney Taylor. I put Leo’s letter in this pdf file to help people like me. I wear glasses and sometimes reading text off a web site with color back grounds makes it difficult on my old eyes.

I hope you will join me in sending U.S. Attorney Taylor a polite request to bring a Quo Warranto action. It is completely within either Holder or Taylor’s discretion. It can be one or the other or both of them. Time is of the essence and we simply must move this along to a resolution. The longer this lingers, the worst the situation will get for all of us and our republic.

Devvy on live radio: Solutions Not Politics
6:00 pm PST, 8:00 pm CST and 9:00 pm EST
Listen live:


United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Web sites on lawsuits:

Listing of cases and actions
Dr. Orly Taitz
Leo Donofrio
Phillip Berg
Mario Apuzzo
United States Justice Foundation
Stephen Pidgeon

Free audio:

Leo Donofrio legal filings and the Wong Kim Ark case

© 2009 – – All Rights Reserved

Where were you born, Obama?


Syndicated columnist
Posted Dec 15, 2008 @ 10:37 AM

Roger Kimball may have tagged it first: The real news out of Chicago last week wasn’t Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s arrest on cartoonishly lurid charges of corruption stemming from his alleged attempts to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s now-vacant U.S. Senate seat. The real news out of Chicago was that President-elect Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

And I mean nothing to do with any of it. There was an almost comical aspect to the spectacle of journalists across the mainstream media suddenly, as if on command, assuming pretzel positions in a contortionist’s effort not to seem at all curious, for instance, about the discrepancy between David Axelrod’s recent declaration that the president-elect had discussed Senate-seat replacements with Blagojevich, and Obama’s more recent declaration that he had done no such thing.

The MSM instantly agreed: Obama had nothing to do with it. Such a message took Obama out of the story even before the story itself was clear.

This mantra, this strategy should be familiar by now. Whether it is Jeremiah “G — d — – America” Wright, William “We didn’t do enough” Ayers, or now, Rod “F — – him” Blagojevich, Obama is never a player, never even a responsible presence in controversies involving associates past and present. In the media-filtered version of events, he’s just not even there. But in no story is what we may one day come to think of as Obama’s invisible man-hood more obvious than in the still-roiling controversy over Obama’s birth certificate.

What controversy? Anyone who relies solely on MSM outlets (and most conservative outlets) may not even know that Obama has, to this day, not authorized the state of Hawaii to release his Certificate of Live Birth  —  the “long form”  —  to prove that he is a “natural born citizen” (NBC), a Constitutional requirement of all presidents. Instead, We, the People, have online access to an Obama document known as a Certification of Live Birth, which, as Randall Hoven explains at American Thinker blog, is a computer-generated short form that is not even accepted by the Hawaii Department of Home Lands as adequate verification of Hawaiian identity. (The Home Lands Department requires “information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth,” or long form.) Further dimming the online document’s Holy Grail aspects, it has been altered  —  the certificate’s number has been redacted  —  which, according to a statement printed on the document, actually invalidates it.

But that’s not all. Back on Oct. 31, Hawaii’s director of health, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics, released a statement verifying that the Hawaii’s Department of Health has Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Well, that’s just great. But no matter how many times this statement from “Hawaiian authorities” is cited as the NBC clincher, it doesn’t prove a thing. It turns out, as Hoven reports, that Hawaii issues birth certificates even for babies born elsewhere, so simply having an original Hawaiian birth certificate “on record” doesn’t answer the key questions. Namely: What exactly does this original birth certificate say? And why doesn’t Obama simply authorize the document’s release and be done with the question?

This is some of the background to the birth-certificate controversy. According to the same MSM reporting that omits Obama from everything, however, the controversy is the sole, self-inflicted creation of people unreasonable enough  —  no, kooky enough  —  to be concerned about the issue. This includes citizens who have gone to court (up to the U.S. Supreme Court) in more than a dozen states with various NBC-related complaints, all of which could be resolved by the release of Obama’s original birth certificate. It also includes followers of radio shows or Internet forums including KHOW’s Peter Boyle in Denver, the blog Atlas Shrugs and the news Web site, which have aggressively covered the story.

In the MSM’s no-Obama version of events, though, such efforts and interest are mocked as the freakiest kind of lunacy. And this same MSM argument has lately been trumpeted by prominent conservative voices.

“Shut up about the birth certificate,” David Horowitz wrote this past week.

Shut up? Is he kidding? Apparently not. Horowitz went on to tell “fringe conservatives” and “birth-certificate zealots” that their “continuing efforts” to “deny Obama his victory” are “embarrassing and destructive.” NRO’s Mark Krikorian, in turn, congratulated Horowitz for “stomping on the ridiculous, bitter-ender efforts to disqualify Obama from the presidency.” Michelle Malkin, too, pooh-poohed the “birth-certificate hunters,” describing them as having “lurched into rabid Truther territory.” 

(“Truthers,” by the way, are people who believe the United States engineered the attacks of 9/11.)

I disagree. I think it is nothing less than good citizenship to seek to verify that Obama is a “natural born citizen” since our elites, which include the major political parties and the MSM, failed to bring the matter to its extremely simple resolution long ago.

But while important, this isn’t just a story about whether we as Americans are right or wrong to ask our president-elect the question about his original birth certificate. It is about whether our president-elect is right or wrong not to answer it.

Once again, Barack Obama is treated as though he were not even a part of this story. Those who seek to resolve the birth certificate controversy draw the fire, but not the man who causes it. Talk shows, court battles and blogs can air the issue, but it is only Obama who can put it to rest. And he can do it simply by authorizing the release of his original, “long form” birth certificate — and quickly, preferably before the Electoral College meets to validate his election on Dec. 15, but certainly before his term of office begins on Jan. 20, 2009.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide.

Diana West is a columnist for The Washington Times. She is the author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization,” and has a blog at She can be contacted via

      Like Justice Thomas did after Justice Souter denied the Donofrio v. Wells case, and scheduled it for Court conference, Justice Scalia today distributed the case of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Connecticut Secretary of State) for December 12th conference review after Justice Ginsberg had denied it.

     Without any fanfare or discussion, the US Supreme Court today announced that it denied hearing the case of Leo Donofrio v. Wells (NJ Secretary of State), wherein he sought an emergency stay on the Electoral College until Barack Obama’s citizenship could be verified.

     Then, just a shor time later, Justice Scalia set the Wrotnowski case for conference review at this Friday’s weekly conference. As stated in a prior post, it is highly unusual for a Justice to bring a case to the conference after another Justice had denied it. Leo Donofrio, in commenting about the Wrotnowski case, has stated that he believes that Cort Wrotnowski’s filing is substantively and procedurally more sound than his case was on its face.

      Here is a listing of the cases in the system that are questioning Obama’s citizenship and his eligibility to be the President of the United States:

Current Lawsuit Listing

This information is taken from’s “Related Lawsuits” page. I am going to endeavor to carry on what the blogger originally started. All dates in parentheses are for the latest update in that case’s category.

Use to monitor this page.

What’s this all about, anyway?

At the Supreme Court (see “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar):

At the State level:

Defunct Cases:


         Additionally, Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg filed for an emergency stay of the Electoral College and the Senate certification of the election.  

     President-elect Obama, lets cease this charade and produce the Damn birth certificate!!

     Without an explanation, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear the first of what will inevitably be NUMEROUS challenges to the eligibilty of President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama II to serve as the President of the United States.

     The Court declined to issue an emergency stay on the Electoral College votes, scheduled for December 15th, as requested by Leo Donofrio in his challenge to Obama’s citizenship. Donofrio acknowledges that Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii, but that his Kenyan and British citizenship precludes him from being considered a “natural born” citizen.

     The case filed by Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, which alleges that (a) Obama was born elsewhere, such as Kenya, and/or (b) his Indonesian citizenship as a child of Lolo Soetoro, making him ineligible to be President, will have his case considered some day this week or next. Additionally, there are at least 16 other challenges at the state and federal court levels nationwide, including the case filed to stop the California Secretary of State from certifying the election and the Electors by Alan Keyes.

     Despite being referred to as nutcases, right-fringe, and delusional, there are still many who believe that Obama could settle this matter very quickly, so that it does not fester as a cloud over his administration. While I would prefer that he not serve as our President, I do want our next President to be able to work on our Nation’s problems without being plagued by issues that cast doubt over his capacity and eligibility.

     In a twist of irony, all the mainstream media that either refused to report anything on the birth certificate issue, or buried it in the body of the news, are reporting the Supreme Court’s denial of the Donofrio case like a wildfire: The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe!!

     After meeting privately to discuss the cases the US Supreme Court would hear, or to issue Writs of Certiorari upon, the list of cases denied or granted was issued late Friday afternoon (Dec. 5th), and the Leo Donofrio case questioning President-Elect Barack Obama’s citizenship and Presidential eligibility was not on EITHER list.

     A spokesman for the Supreme Court said that no decision had been reached as of yet, and that a decision from the Justices would most likely be forthcoming in the next week or so.

     Unlike other cases, such as Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg’s case, which allege that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, the Donofrio case concedes Obama’s verbal assertion that he was born in Hawaii, but Donofrio claims that Obama’s British citizenship, afforded to him as the son of a British subject, precludes him from being the President. Barack Obama Sr., as a Kenyan citizen, was automatically a British citizen, since Kenya was a part of the British Commonwealth.

     Other cases are still pending in the lower courts, including the lawsuit brought by Presidential candidate Alan Keyes against California’s Secretary of State to stop the certification of the State’s Electors. Each of the cases that have been filed throughout the country have the potential of being heard in the Supreme Court, based upon their outcome at the lower court and appellate level.

     Since the Director of the Hawaii Dept. of Health stopped short of stating that the documents on file in Hawaii state that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the only satisfactory resolution to the “birthplace” part of the citizenship question would be for Barack Hussein Obama II to authorize the Hawaiian authorities to release the vaulted documents.

     The Electoral College can, though it is unlikely, vote by conscience, based upon the Obama team’s like of candor in this matter, and not vote for Obama. Some states require their Electors to the Electoral College to vote as the state voted, but others allow the Elector’s a bit of discretion in their votes. In fact, a massive lobbying effort directly to the Electors in some states has been going on since November 4th.

     Although President-Elect Obama has resigned his Senate seat, a move which is irreversible, it is noteworthy that Sen. Joe Biden has not yet resigned his seat, nor has Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and Sen. Hillary Clinton has said that she will not resign until she is confirmed as Secretary of State by the Senate. Senator Clinton’s decision not to resign just yet is completely understandable, but if their is such certainty in Obama’s election, one has to wonder why Sen. Biden and Rep. Emanuel have not resigned their positions.