Leo Donofrio

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15699
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:06 pm

Justice Gray, [highlight]by any objective standard[/highlight], should have recused himself [in Wong Kim Ark] if he had knowledge of Chester Arthur’s nativity.

](*,)





The issue of Chester Arthur having been born to an alien father wasn’t known to the public when Arthur ran for VP, or at anytime through his POTUS administration.

It is in Hinman's book.


And there has not been a single newspaper article, or legal reference to the issue, anywhere in recorded American history before 2008.

Yet Donofrio cannot figure out why. :-k








Donofrio wants to be the anti-Maskell. Except Maskell is paid to advise Congress, and Donofrio gets paid by the flop.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31111
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:09 pm

Donofrio wants to be the anti-Maskell. Except Maskell is paid to advise Congress, and Donofrio occasionally gets paid by the flop.

MIFY

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 11298
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Leo Donofrio

Postby Reality Check » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:36 pm

There are five posts on Leo's blog for January. A total of five comments have been left. They are all by Leo. :cheer:
“The reality of what we really are is often times found in the small snips, way down at the bottom of things.” – Jean Shepherd

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31111
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:38 pm

Leo has very lively conversations with himself. I'm pretty sure he laughs at his jokes, too. And probably sends himself cards on all the relevant celebration days.

Loren
Posts: 4263
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby Loren » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:49 am

I like how Leo simultaneously brags about how he was the first to discover the 'truth' about Arthur's parentage in 2008...and then turns around and bases his entire argument against Justice Gray on the possibility that Gray was, on a personal level, knowledgeable about the parentage of the President who had appointed him to the Supreme Court 17 years earlier and who had also DIED 12 years earlier.It's hard for this factoid to be public enough for Gray to have known it in 1898, but obscure enough that no one else noticed it until 2008.It's not unlike another pair of Birther claims: that Obama did a thorough job of covering up his Kenyan birth in the American media, but meanwhile everybody in Kenya knows Obama was born there.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:53 am

It's not unlike another pair of Birther claims: that Obama did a thorough job of covering up his Kenyan birth in the American media, but meanwhile everybody in Kenya knows Obama was born there.

Well, no true ScotsmanAmerican would ever be in a foreign country full of strange dark people, like Kenya. Except, of course, the intrepid birfers, who sally forth from their trailer parks to find Teh Troof for We, the People.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby ballantine » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:14 am

Is Leo going to tell us how Gray strong armed 5 other Justices to agree with him? Would have been 6 if Field hadn't retired. I sure Leo will come up with an answer. Of course, Gray co-authored a paper 20 years before joining the Court generally embracing birthright citizenship. Wait, that must be why he was appointed by Arthur. Apparently, the choice was between Gray and Senator Edmunds. But wasn't it Edmunds who wrote Gray after Wong Kim Ark telling him his decision was what Congress had intended? So Arthur must have searched far and wide to two proponents of birthright citizenship. But wasn't Garfield already vetting Gray to replace the very ill Clifford when he was assassinated? Well Garfield must have been in on it too as he was a proponent of birthright citizenship in Congress as well. No telling how big this conspiracy was.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby TollandRCR » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:37 am

George Collins was everything that we have seen the worst of the Birfers to be. A brief account from [link]Guardians of the City,http://guardiansofthecity.org/sheriff/1906/index.html[/link] about George Collins during the Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire describes Collins' behavior during the fire, while his case was still on appeal:

The long line of prisoners guarded by Sheriff's deputies, national Guardsmen, and sailors, made their way through the streets of North Beach toward their destination, Fort Mason. After being loaded on a launch, the detail sailed to San Quentin Prison only to be turned away. Because they had arrived with military escort, Warden John Edgar was not convinced they were state prisoners and refused to accept them. The prisoner ship sailed back to San Francisco, "but as it entered the harbor the thousands of persons who lined the wharves, holding out entreating arms and pleading to be taken aboard and away from the scene of destruction, caused the captain to steam away, finally landing the prisoners at Alcatraz Island." Originally a defensive military fortress, the Alcatraz facility had been converted to a federal military prison in 1861 during the Civil War. The 176 San Francisco prisoners were accepted on an emergency basis at Alcatraz, after almost two days of marching and sailing under guard. Along the way, at least two prisoners hoped the earthquake and fire would work in their favor. The more desperate of the two was local attorney and notorious bigamist George D. Collins, who was already convicted of perjury and sentenced to the maximum sentence of fourteen years in State Prison. Apparently not optimistic of his chances on appeal, Mr. Collins attempted to escape twice during the long evacuation. When the Broadway Jail was emptied out, Collins turned up missing. "A hurried search through the gloomy building on Broadway disclosed him hiding under a cot, where he had chosen to face the approaching flames rather than chance the fortunes of human justice once more." Later, on one of the watery transport, "a number of prisoners were separated from the Sheriff" before custody of all but one was regained. Collins was missing again. Sheriff O'Neil thought it possible that Collins had jumped ship prior to docking. After what is described as " a frenzied hunt," Collins was discovered hiding in a dark ship's closet. While Mr. Collins' journey was far from over, he lost his best chance to escape - and his appeal, which went all the way to the United States Supreme Court - and eventually was received at San Quentin in 1909 after years of legal maneuvering. There he stayed until his release in 1918.Another prisoner had much better luck, likely due to much better connections. That prisoner was William F. Hopkins, nephew of the late millionaire Mark Hopkins. Although serving a ninety-day sentence for assault, within ten days of the earthquake, young Mr. Hopkins was pleased to be released after receiving a pardon signed by California Governor George Pardee.

Hopkins got the best justice that money could buy. Collins, without such family connections, was not so lucky. People were dying in the city while law officers searched for Collins instead of assisted in rescue efforts. I am quite sure that Collins did not care.This was the man that [link]The Undead Revolution,http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/[/link] and Leo briefly idolized.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby ballantine » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:08 pm

George Collins was everything that we have seen the worst of the Birfers to be.

Reading his article, Collins doesn't even try to conceal his hatred of the Chinese and make clear such is his motivation. At least he makes a real legal argument and doesn't try to claim that some convoluted interpretation of Minor v. Happersett supports him.

Loren
Posts: 4263
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby Loren » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:26 pm

George Collins was everything that we have seen the worst of the Birfers to be.

Reading his article, Collins doesn't even try to conceal his hatred of the Chinese and make clear such is his motivation. At least he makes a real legal argument and doesn't try to claim that some convoluted interpretation of Minor v. Happersett supports him.

Yes, it's interesting that the man who helped write the government's brief in Wong Kim Ark did not even MENTION Minor v. Happersett in this 1884 article of his.I have the Wong Kim Ark dissent handy. Maybe the dissenters fell back on arguing that Minor constituted contrary precedent:

I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughter-House Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 167, remarked that there were doubts, which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. But that solution is furnished in Elk v. Wilkins,

Ah, so even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark explicitly said that Minor didn't settle crap.OK, maybe George argued it, but the dissent didn't mention it. [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/01/12/us-v-wong-kim-ark-169-us-649-1898-appellants-brief-usa/]Here is appellants' brief in Wong Kim Ark. Ah, and there's a reference to Minor on p. 37 of the book, where the brief says that Minor...settled that suffrage is not an incident of citizenship. And that's it as far as Minor goes.It's amazing how much damage Justia did with Minor. Their code errors even made 19th century jurists ignore Minor.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8308
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Whatever4 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:56 pm

Is there a link/links to the briefs and opinions of the lower courts for WKA?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15699
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby bob » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:01 pm

Is there a link/links to the briefs and opinions of the lower courts for WKA?

They have recently been posted (reposted?) on [/break1]wordpress.com/]nbc's site.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8308
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Whatever4 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:36 pm

Is there a link/links to the briefs and opinions of the lower courts for WKA?

They have recently been posted (reposted?) on [/break1]wordpress.com/]nbc's site.

I see the Supreme Court case, but not the lower court cases. Any hints?

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby ballantine » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:39 pm

Is there a link/links to the briefs and opinions of the lower courts for WKA?

They have recently been posted (reposted?) on [/break1]wordpress.com/]nbc's site.

I see the Supreme Court case, but not the lower court cases. Any hints?

[/break1]google.com/books?id=Nyc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA383&dq=wong+kim+ark+california&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j0QPT5a7KcLh0QGhjPSNAw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wong%20kim%20ark%20california&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=Nyc4AA ... ia&f=false

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby ballantine » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:44 pm


User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8308
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Whatever4 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:11 pm

Thanks! :-bd

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 27935
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby mimi » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:35 pm

I forget the link to nolu's writings, but I follow him on scribd. Today i saw this:Joseph Story, Leo Donofrio, and the British Statute Punctuation Mystery[/break1]scribd.com/doc/78482853/Joseph-Story-Leo-Donofrio-and-the-British-Statute-Punctuation-Mystery?in_collection=3089400]http://www.scribd.com/doc/78482853/Jose ... on=3089400this is the link to his "birther blather" folder on scribd:[/break1]scribd.com/collections/3089400/Birther-Blather]http://www.scribd.com/collections/30894 ... er-BlatherAnd this is his main scribd:[/break1]scribd.com/nolu%20chan]http://www.scribd.com/nolu%20chanspeaking of scribd, I have problems on blogs where a bunch of scribd documents are placed. It will freeze my computer and I have to wait or sometimes close my browser. :cry: It would be lovely if scribd documents could be placed "below the fold". Then, when I go to a blog homepage, I don't have to deal with lots of scribd docs trying to load or whatever. Yeah. I'm a techie. :-?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15699
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby bob » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:29 pm

Donofrio: [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/]The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.


[A blogger] then quoted two provisions from the [/break1]uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html]link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site[*] which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”





Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:





The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to [highlight]a native- and natural-born[/highlight] citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien… (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:


(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.





The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and [highlight]restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen[/highlight] (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:


The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status [highlight]if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen,[/highlight] as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

* Actually Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the INS hasn't existed since 2003.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15699
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Leo Donofrio

Postby bob » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:38 pm

From [/break1]facebook.com/jerome.corsi/posts/217609388333297]Corsi's facebook page:


Leo did a good job of tearing holes in the English Common Law "natural-born subject" argument [in his amicus brief] with his religion argument as well. The King of England is supposed to be Christ's representative on Earth...much like the Pope in the Catholic Church. [highlight]The US is Constitutionally prohibited from using a definition of citizenship that requires Christian faith[/highlight]. End of story.

Race Religion: Itsa locator.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby esseff44 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:35 pm

Would someone like McCain be classified as a native-born citizen? He could be a natural born citizen without being a native born citizen. However, I do not see how anyone could be a native born citizen and not be a natural born citizen.One would have to go back and investigate what was going on when this phrasing of the law was written. Legislation is not always clearly written and some of the references can be time worn or have a different meaning at the time of writing. It still would not control the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution unless it was designed to do so. This has nothing to do with the specifics of the qualifications of a president or vice-president.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Suranis » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:43 pm

If you are the child of a Diplomat you could be native born but not natural born, but for most purposes the 2 things are synonymous. Certrainly cornell has little or nothing about a difference between the 2. [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc ... 0_III.html

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby esseff44 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:52 pm

If you are the child of a Diplomat you could be native born but not natural born, but for most purposes the 2 things are synonymous. Certrainly cornell has little or nothing about a difference between the 2. [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc ... 0_III.html

As the child of a diplomat, you would not be a citizen even though native born. I think the emphasis in the legislation was on citizenship lost and restored by a woman's marital situation. I don't see the two terms applied to citizenship as have a different legal effect but perhaps historic significance and was an attempt to cover all bases.

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1773
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby everalm » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:12 pm

It's up on ORYR now and looking at the web site linked[/break1]uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html]http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... 48602.htmlAll it does is discuss OLD (1907, 1922, 1936, 1941 etc)laws and the terminology that THESE laws used.As we know, as far back as before the Constitutional Convention, the words native and natural were mixed and matched in legal documents and meant the same thing.All I see is interpretation of differing laws, using the same interchangeable words, written so that no one would be likely to over parse what the interpretation means.So of course Leo, naturally over parsed as is his inevitable wont.......YMMV

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby esseff44 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:50 pm

It's up on ORYR now and looking at the web site linked[/break1]uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html]http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... 48602.htmlAll it does is discuss OLD (1907, 1922, 1936, 1941 etc)laws and the terminology that THESE laws used.As we know, as far back as before the Constitutional Convention, the words native and natural were mixed and matched in legal documents and meant the same thing.All I see is interpretation of differing laws, using the same interchangeable words, written so that no one would be likely to over parse what the interpretation means.So of course Leo, naturally over parsed as is his inevitable wont.......YMMV

When you think about it, if the eligibility clause had used the term ' native born citizen,' it would have be so restrictive as to exclude many of the people in the convention who were not born in the United States as it was formed. It would have excluded people born on the fast moving frontier, for example. If they had meant for it to be exclusive, they could have made it exclusive.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31111
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Leo Donofrio

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:24 pm

Yes, Leo, let USCIS determine who is eligible to serve as POTUS! Why didn't I think of that. :yankyank:


Return to “Lesser Lights”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests