The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office

I listened to Leo Donofrio for two hours on The Chalice Show (March 18th). He is an extremely interesting man - rock musician, chess player, pro poker player, lawyer - and I finally felt like I had found the answer to the information I have relentlessly been seeking which is: Is there a legitimate legal basis for removing Barack Obama from office and is there any chance in hell of finding out the truth about whether or not he actually should be removed from office.

According to Leo, the following [see below] which are more recent posts to his blog are a pretty complete overview of what is really going on (actually it is a very deep overview, but was written with us regular folks in mind).

He only plans to post again if and when there is anything that occurs as a result of his "Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor" (see below) or, perhaps, other developments that he might want to comment on.

Here is quote that will set the stage for what follows:

I am not a carnival barker or circus aficionado. The law I write about is that of legal fact not fanciful fiction based on clumsy metaphorical wordplay meant to confuse. When I write about the law, that writing is grounded in the Constitution, statutes and SCOTUS interpretations as precedent. If the law makes it hard for me to find a path to justice, I do not go about blasting justice away for the sake of getting the result I want.

To commit blasphemy against the Constitution’s separation of powers would be a sin against justice. True enemies of the Constitution care not if they destroy it by installing an ineligible president or if they destroy it by seeing him removed unconstitutionally. If your ultimate intention is to destroy the Constitution, both results are a win for you.

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1

This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility. The brief will be sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to the issues contained herein.

Please note from the start that only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF - Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment

The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief.

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE - SEPARATION OF POWERS Cont.

The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.

Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor

[The above letter is being sent via certified mail and e mail to Jeffrey Taylor, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The same letter will also be sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.]

The Natural Born Citizen Blog Is Now Restricted

While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suits has availed itself of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.

Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blog’s content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.

SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS including my own. It’s true that - technically - Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari. Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic. The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

The same is true for Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from becoming “president-elect” and later president.

Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded

The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Enjoy :-)