PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc – was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski

1. Polarik’s findings were reviewed by Dr. Neal Krawetz. It did not pass this single peer review. Polarik’s findings have not undergone the standard peer review process. If it’s worth anything, it’s worth being subjected to proper peer reivew before being touted as accurate.

2. This correct to a degree. The COLB posted can never be proven to be authentic, but it can(and has) been proven to not have been tampered with. However, it is not evidence that Obama was born elsewhere either which is what it is being used as.

3. Correct. It’s based on the interpretation of Article II of the US Constitution where “natural born citizen” is referenced. Judah Benjamin first posited the interpretation that the framers based upon a letter John Jay sent to George Washington saying:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The premise being that because his father was Kenyan(at the time a British Colony), Obama was a British citizen at his time of birth. The interpretation itself is hardly quite so clear cut as people want it to appear.

That aside, the contention that Obama was a British citizen at all is debatable. Note the British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II, Section 5(b) which reads:

“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:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or”

I’m not aware that Obama’s father registered with a British consulate by 1962.

There are other legal arguments that can be made against the intrepretation presented in the Donofrio case. The key thing to remember is that this is not as definitive as, you, and others would like to make it seem, much less acknowledge.

4. It will be covered, most assuredly, once the Supreme Court decides to hear the case. There are numerous reasons that it hasn’t been covered here-to-for which are all perfectly reasonable – unsubstantiated evidence, poor legal arguments, and the history of person’s filing lawsuits(Berg and Martin).

1. The complete set of “Polarik” observations should be worthy of further review.

2. If this apparently derived COLB is not a forgery per se, it does not mean that it is an accurate representation of the place of birth of Barack Obama.

3. Barack Obama’s place of birth is not an essential element of Donofrio’s New Jersey lawsuit, which asserts that BHO is not eligible for the office of the presidency, by not being a “natural born citizen” according to the meaning of that phrase as it was drafted.

4. Considering the above, there is no reason to black-out news coverage of cases being being brought as high as the Supeme Court of the United States of America.

I haven’t seen anything that indicates Ron Polarik is anything but an internet entity. There is no record of a Ron Polarik anywhere except several account creations on various internet cites prior to his posting of his findings.

I prefer to cite works of known, verifiable forensic experts such as Neal Krawetz. It’s not a matter of dwelling on minor defects, but a matter of professional integrity and verification. An experts qualifications are hardly a minor defect, especially in a court of law.

If you have some verification of Ron Polarik’s credentials, I’d be more then happy to retract my statement. Or at least some previous history of work in image analysis and forensics.

Why do you dwell on the minor defects of these people instead of the real issue?

The information presented by Debbie Schlussel are mildly interesting. A good deal of her argument as to why the displayed document is a forgery revolve around a considerable amount of inference based around assumptions. While it’s worth investigating further, her presentation is not definitive.

@Dionysus

It’s quite common to consistently move the “goalposts” in order to accomplish a goal. It is interesting that initially the Obama birth certificate issue centered around whether he was actually born in the United States. When the primacy of their evidence(Techdude and Polarik) that is was a forgery became untenable, the argument moved to focusing on the interpretation of “Allegiance” under Article II of the Constitution.

@william

I commend you on your fervor, however equally viral it might be compared against those who you condemn. Understand that nothing has been proven from either side. Your side presented purported evidence that the Obama COLB was a forgery. When examined by known forensic experts, Techdude and Polarik’s findings failed to hold water. No credible evidence has been presented to proof or indicate that the Obama COLB is a forgery. I’m sure you can understand the principle of burden of proof.

A preponderance of evidence regarding other matters, as to Obama’s suitability for POTUS is dominated by either ancedotal evidence or intuition. Ancedotal evidence is suspect by nature. There are claims that tapes exist that show Michelle Obama and his grandmother state he was born outside the United States. As of now, those tapes have not surfaced. Proof of an accusation cannot be reasonably exist until said proof is produced. Intuition is often susceptible to subjectivity. For instance, the question of which hospital Obama was born at stems from conflicting wikipedia entries. It seems more a matter of personal convention to fulfill personal ends to cite a source so easily compromised.

The only argument to be made here is to consider what constitutes a “natural born citizen” under Article II. Previous legal precedent and US law indicate that dual citizenship is not grounds for lose of US citizenship. So, the argument shifts to the interpretation of “Allegiance” in Article II, and whether or not dual citizenship violates this term. One could make the objective argument that “Allegiance” presupposes only a single citizenship, while an equally reasonable argument could be made that the framers intended for no agent of a foreign government to hold the Presidency and “Allegiance” is intent based on previous associations and/or actions.

Nothing, as you say, has been proven or fully debunked. You are just as guilty in your righteousness as you criminalize others for the same offense. The Supreme Court deciding to hold a conference on the case is significant, but it is not prima facia evidence that Obama is not POTUS eligible, as you portray it to be. There are numerous questions worthy of answering, not least of all are questions concerning Article II and POTUS procedural matters. Never has POTUS been an issue in any previous Presidential election, and it’s prudent for the Court to address the matter. But again, just because the process is taking it’s course, does not presuppose a verdict.

If your honestly interested in the truth then follow the entire process from beginning to end without indoctrinating each step in the process with your own ideology. Just as you decry Dionysus for his refusal to accept an alternative truth, you should as well. The truth rarely shines through a tinted window.

http://cpr-dionysus.blogspot.com/