Donofrio confirms Chrysler-Dealers’ lawsuit

WITH ATTORNEY STEVEN PIDGEON, FILES QUO WARRANTO ACTION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

by John Charlton

chrysler-logo(Dec. 7, 2009) — The Post & Email can confirm this afternoon, that Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon are representing a group of Chrysler Automotive dealers in seeking legal redress to their loss of their franchises following the direct and unconstitutional involvement of Barack Hussein Obama in the Chrysler reorganization.

It is speculated that the action will involve a writ of quo warranto, where by Obama will be legally forced to prove that he legitimately holds office as President of the United States in accord with the requirements of Article II, section 1, paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.

That paragraph reads,

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 Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions confirmed that the phrase “natural born citizen” indicates a U.S. citizen, who was born in the U.S.A. of two U.S. citizen parents.  Obama, on account of having a father who was a British subject at the time of his own birth, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen.  He is thus unqualified to hold the office of president.

Regarding the pending action in the courts of the District of Columbia, Donofrio says that the goal of Steve Pidgeon and himself is to see the owners of the dealerships, whom they represent, “reinstated to their businesses.”

The District of Columbia is unique in the nation, for having a section of its legal code devoted to the writ of quo warranto, when employed against federal office-holders who exercise their office within the District.

Attorney Donofrio is famous for his advocacy of the use of the quo warranto provisions of the D.C. Code and holds that the D.C. courts are the only proper venue for such actions against federal officers.

For more information about the issues raised in this report, click on the tags at the bottom of this article.

Print Friendly

26 Responses to "Donofrio confirms Chrysler-Dealers’ lawsuit"

  1. Pingback: OMG! Really? Hawaii Has Hissy Fit !!! « My Very Own Point of View

  2. Kathy   Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    I still think Pelosi KNOWS the truth about his birth place.

  3. Helena   Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM

    I hope to God he doesn’t finished his term. If all of this is TRUE and there’s so MUCH EVIDENCE WHY IS taken so long TO IMPEACH THIS MAN! He’s has LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE GET GOI!!! I hope he gets what he deserves . When Ex. President Nixon was involved in the WATER -GATE SCANDAL the Administration didn’t waste any time to get him out!!! That was a very EXPEDIOUS PROCESS. The same should be applied in this case!

  4. Pingback: Donofrio, Pidgeon to file suit on behalf of Chrysler dealers | Obama Conspiracy Theories

  5. Jon   Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM

    In today’s Wall St. Journal, December 10, 2009, article “Car Dealers Seek Reprieve” reports Congress is considering giving relief to car dealers who lost their franchises. The language of the bill has already been approved by the House and Senate which will enable 2,000 dealers to pursue third party mediation with possibility of reinstatement as a franchise car dealer. Still many of these dealers will not receive the compensasiton justified and hopefully Leo Donofrio’s case will give them the upper hand in forcing Obama to concede to their demands or make him prove he is eligible to hold office.

    ———————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: There are several constitutional issues with this bill. First of all, there is no president to make it law. Second, Obama’s actions against the dealers was unlawful and criminal. Third Congress should remove him from power, not buy off his victims…

  6. gabe   Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM

    quote “Obama acknowledges that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”

    That settles it then. We’ll just let the individual govt’s involved, enforce each other’s laws. Good luck when they don’t even enforce their own.

  7. Pingback: » Links to Visit – 12/09/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

  8. BobNC   Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 2:22 AM

    Thanks Ladysforest! I will bookmark your link.

    I also found a bunch of Leo’s posts archived at Oil for Immigration’s page;

    here; http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=3387

    and here; http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=3387&paged=2

    and here; http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=3387&paged=3

  9. Ladysforest   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    Hey Bob,
    A thinking individual saved a great deal of the research. Also, parts of the blog content can be found on various blogs and sites.
    I have some of Leos blog entries pertaining to the campaign to extract info from Hawaii on my blog pages also, and will be adding more.

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com

  10. John Galt   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    HT: The Obama File

    Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

    See here for article detailing additional reasons why Barak Obama Sr. is not Barack Obama Jr’ father.

    http://obama-freedomphobe.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-indonesian-citizenship-and-frank.html

  11. BobNC   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 5:29 AM

    I noticed the url at Citizen Wells, in the latest NC court filing posted there.

    It is entered as newly discovered evidence in the case. You can view it right below; PRESENTATION OF NEW EVIDENCE : http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/lt-col-donald-sullivan-v-nc-board-of-elections-elaine-marshall-nc-secretary-of-state-update-december-7-2009-obama-eligibility-obama-kenyan-born/

  12. BobNC   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 4:32 AM

    The postnemail wordpress url I am speaking of was entered as evidence in the last North Carolina Obama eligibility court filing. I am not a party nor do I know the people involved so it is impossible for me to change it.

    Here is the plaintiffs contact info; Lt. Col., USAFR(R) PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-617-2559
    ———————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Oh, I had no idea….I will restore the public availability of the old blog, for the sake of the National Interest…

  13. BobNC   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 3:49 AM

    by the way, Mr. Charlton, I noticed you disabled the thepostnemail wordpress site. I hope that does not hinder, in any way, the North Carolina eligibility case which references your wordpress site(http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born) in the law suit.

    Keep up the Good Fight!
    ——————–
    Links to the old site will not work, they must be updated to the news url. Within a week or so, I will erase the old site, so move them as soon as you can..

    As for that link
    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born
    the new link is
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born

    Public notice to all who linked to old blog:

    ALL THE ARTICLES AT THE OLD BLOG ARE AT THE SITE YOU ARE PRESENTLY VIEWING.

    How to edit links to old site to make them work correctly with the new site?

    Simply change this part of every link

    thepostnemail.wordpress.com

    to

    http://www.thepostemail.com

    and voilà, the link will work….

    As the old wordpress site does not allow 301 code transfers, I could either ask everyone with one or two links to update their links, or I could spend a week editing all the pages there and adding a notice to each of the 390+ reports how to do that…and I don’t have that much free time…

  14. Bob   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 3:43 AM

    Pretty good reason! I just wish he would have left all his historical research online instead of removing it… : (

  15. Follow the Constitution   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 2:25 AM

    The reason I didn’t post a url is because no one would be able to read it. You have to be a paid subscriber in order to get access to their online articles. Otherwise I would have posted the url.

    Since I knew you read any responses before approving them to be posted I posted the entire article for you to see it and decide for yourself what to do with any of the info in it. The main thing I wanted was to get it out there to make you aware of this and detremine if there is anything of value here. I would have just emailed it directly to you but I don’t have your email.

    ————————–
    Mr. Charlton replies: You can always send me tips, urls, stories, through the Contact page link at the top of every page at The Post & Email. Yes, a paid only site does not want its content in comment boxes, but you can still post the url, just mention it is a paid subscription site…

  16. IceTrey   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 1:52 AM

    I guess this is why Leo shut down his site.

  17. Texoma Ed   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM

    McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was not born in the United States (one of the 50 states or DC). He was a dual citizen at birth because, according to Panamanian law, McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth.

  18. Erica   Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM

    Quo Warranto to Remove Obama from Office
    jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/quo-warranto-to-remove-obama.html

    Obama The Unconstitutional Usurper
    jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-obama-unconstitutional-usurper.html

    Graphic Defining “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”
    jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html

    Graphic Defining Natural Born Citizen
    jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html

    Best wishes to Leo and Steve.

  19. Follow the Constitution   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM

    This will be interesting to see how quick they move to resolve this issue with the dealers that had their franchises stolen away from them with these new lawsuits filed. Especially the Quo-Warranto suit. They will need to make this go away and the quickest way to do that would be to resolve all the issues with this dealers before they go to court!

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

    House leaders craft new bill for rejected dealers
    Measure would allow dealers to present any relevant information in arbitration

    Neil Roland
    Automotive News | December 7, 2009 – 1:39 pm EST

    WASHINGTON — House leaders crafted a bill over the weekend that would provide third-party arbitration for rejected General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group dealerships using criteria more favorable to dealers than those proposed by the automakers last week.

    Editor:FTC, you violate the copyright of Automotive news everytime you cut and paste their entire article into some internet forum or site. Please paste the urls. They cannot exist without advertising, just like The Post & Email can’t either, that is why we have a copyright policy, which readers can read: in the upper left corner of our header on every page.

  20. Kathy   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM

    Do we know any court dates yet?

  21. Benaiah   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of Presiden’”… At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  22. Benaiah   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM

    Obama acknowledges that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948
    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies
    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

    To reiterate, Obama acknowledges that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Thus, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”.

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

  23. Larry   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 4:25 PM

    This is remarkably good news. Over time Leo Donofrio has shown a keener grasp of the natural born citizen issue than anyone. This will probably be the best chance, so please pray he and his team are successful.

    Thank you, Leo!

  24. Benaiah   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM

    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”, not whether WONG was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Suffice it to say, a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States at birth” is not synonymous with an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. An Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States is always a “citizen of the United States at birth”. A “citizen of the United States at birth” is not always an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President…

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause [natural born citizen] in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “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.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  25. Benaiah   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM

    Article I, Section 2: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

    Article I, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen…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.

    To reiterate, “No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.”

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause [natural born citizen] in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Moreover, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

    Obama acknowledges at his Fight the Smears website that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948 – Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  26. Phil   Monday, December 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM

    John,

    Thanks for your continued coverage of a story about which the confirmations from Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Pidgeon I initially broke (with a very large lead-in by Ms. Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner):

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/12/06/source-donofrio-pidgeon-and-quo-warranto-in-dc/

    Best,

    -Phil

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.