Tag Archives: Paraclete

Exclusive!!! Leo Donofrio’s First Post-Birther Song!!!

The Sheep Always Loved Whatever Donofrio Did. The Other Animals Were More Critical.

Well, the former Birther Lawyer, Leo “The Paraclete” Donofrio, has quit his legal blogging and decided to turn his many talents to music and song writing:

After long consideration and discussion with my family, I am saying goodbye to this blog and the law. I am retiring my law license and will be concentrating on making films, and writing music.


Perhaps this will allow him to emotionally move past 1875 and the Minor v. Happersett case where he could just not seem to get it through his thick skull that the language, not necessary to resolve these doubts, meant just what it said. That the Court was not going to resolve the issue of whether children born inside the United States of foreign parents were citizens or not. It just wasn’t necessary to what was going on in court to resolve those doubts. Twenty three years later in 1898, the doubts were decided in the Wonk Kim Ark case.

Donofrio and his flock of Birfer Sheep have been clogging up the courts with just the opposite conclusion, even when the courts clearly tell them that Minor v. Happersett left the issue open as in Ankeny v. Governor.  But, maybe Donofrio can now get on with his life, away from this whole topic.  At least that was my sincere prayer. Then one of my undercover Birther agents snuck out a copy of the song Donofrio has been working on the last few days.

I am not positive this is authentic, but the insistence of the song writer that his woman’s cheatin’ doubts about him needed to be resolved, even though  she had already moved on to a new lover and had closure,  is telling. This is like Donofrio insisting the Minor v. Happersett court needed in some way to resolve an issue not at contest in the case. No. Sometimes you just leave the doubts open and move on to what matters.

Here are the lyrics. It looks to be some kind of blues. Whatever, I don’t think Donofrio has closure with Birtherism, yet.

It Ain’t Necessary (To Resolve Those Doubts)
By Leo Donofrio???

You say you never trusted me,
And always had some doubts.
You heard I was a “hound dog.”
Who was always stepping out.
But now you say you’re  over me,
My games have wore you out.
Now, it  ain’t necessary to,
Resolve those doubts.

It doesn’t matter any more
You got a brand new man.
So who cares if I ran around
‘Cause you don’t give a damn.
And now you say you’re through with me,
Don’t care about my pouts.
Now, it ain’t necessary to
Resolve those doubts.

Sooo, I have tried to make those words
Reverse from what you meant.
So not resolving doubts instead,
Proves I was innocent.
But you ask if I am crazy,
And you say I’m washing out.
And still not necessary to,
Resolve those doubts.

You say accept reality,
Forget about the doubts
“Cause your new man is moving in
And I am moving out.”
You tell me to start packing.
No need for screams and shouts.
Now, it  ain’t necessary to,
Resolve those doubts.

I feel like I been here before,
Head bangin’ this Brick Wall???
Perhaps my education
Needs a legal overhaul.
Now that I have been usurped. . .
Those no good cheatin’ louts!
Guess it ain’t necessary to,
Resolve those doubts.

No, I guess I learned one thing,
From these domestic bouts,
Don’t argue with a woman when,
She resolves to throw you out.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image.  This is  Orpheus Charming The Animals by Leandro Bassano.

With A Kwock Kwock Here And A Quack Quack There

Donofrio's Decoy Was Amateurish, But It Fooled A Few Really Dumb Ducks

This is a short follow-up post concerning the Congressional Research Memo, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, by Jack Maskell. This well written memo completely and comprehensively devastates the ridiculous Birther legal theories.

Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete, and major promoter of the two citizen-parent lunacy has launched a feeble counter attack against the memo,  quibbling about the phrasing of one sentence in the report regarding the 1920 SCOTUS case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221


And in a petulant childish fashion,  Donofrio photo-shopped in the word Propaganda to the memo’s heading:

Donofrio objected to Maskell characterizing the parents as Chinese nationals when there was information in the decision which indicated the parents  were actually citizens. The plaintiff, Kwock Jan Fat was born in America, but because he was of Chinese origin, he had to comply with regulations which required a preinvestigation of his status as an American citizen.

There was a strict immigration policy in force regarding the Chinese, and this was necessary for him to be able to return the United States after a trip to China.  Three people provided information to the Department of Immigration that he was born in America, and thus a natural born citizen.  However between the time he left for China, and the time he returned, somebody provided anonymous information to the government that he was actually another person, born in China, not America.  Upon his return he was imprisoned and he filed a habeas corpus petition which made it to the Supreme Court.

One of the witnesses had provided information in the original preinvestigation application to the Department of Immigration that Kwock Jan Fat’s father, Kwock Tuck Lee was native born and a voter.

Ernest Michaelis, for twenty-six years a justice of the peace and for many years the official collector of fish licenses, testified, making reference, for purpose of identification, to a photograph of the petitioner. He said he had known the parents of the boy since shortly after he himself went to live at Monterey in 1879; that there were two boys and three girls in the family; that he had seen the petitioner frequently as a little fellow when he went to collect fish licenses (the boy’s father was a fisherman), and had known him ever since; and, referring to the photograph, he declared positively that he was sure of his identity and that he was born in Monterey. He added that the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.

However, the Court simply characterized the parents as permanently domiciled in the United States:

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

Donofrio regards Maskell’s  characterization of the parents as Chinese nationals and “creative use of quotation marks” as part of a “Frankenstein inspired patchwork.” Maskell replied to this claim today, and as reported on Jonathan Turley’s legal blog:


I wrote to Maskell about Kwock; his response:

“I agree that case cite needs clarification to emphasize that Kwock and one witness did aver that his father was born in the United States. It is important, I think, that the Court only mentioned that the parents were permanently “domiciled” in the United States, and thus did not appear to rely on citizenship status, when they accepted the characterization of the Commissioner of Immigration that he was a natural born citizen.”

But, as I discovered, the SCOTUS may have been more legally precise in their description than it appears to us in hindsight. In 1920 The Geary Act was still in effect, and there appears to have been a legal presumption that persons of Chinese descent were . . .(drumroll) . . . Chinese. From Wiki:

The Geary Act, [1892] besides renewing the exclusion of Chinese laborers for another 10 years, also outlined provisions that required Chinese already in the U.S. to possess “certificates of residence” (as well as “certificates of identity” after the McCreary amendment was added) that served as proof that they entered the U.S. legally and had the right to remain in the country. The certificates of residence contained the name, age, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the applicant. The act placed the burden of proof of their right to be in the U.S. on the Chinese themselves, denied bail to Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings, made it the duty of all Chinese laborers in the U.S. to apply within one year for a certificate of residence, with a duplicate kept in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and suitable penalties were prescribed for any falsification of certificates. Another of the Act’s provisions required two white witnesses to testify to a Chinese person’s immigration status. If any Chinese laborer within the United States without this certificate of residence was “deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States”, they could be arrested and forced to do hard labor, and be deported after a year.This was the first time ever illegal immigration to the U.S. was made punishable by such a harsh degree.

See also:

  • 1892 Geary Act: Congress extended all previous Chinese Exclusion Laws by ten years.  By requiring Chinese persons in the United States to carry a “certificate of residence” at all times, the Geary Act made Chinese persons who could not produce these certificates presumptively deportable unless they could establish residence through the testimony of “at least one credible white witness.”  Congress also denied bail to Chinese immigrants who applied for writs of habeas corpus.  Text
  • 1902: Congress indefinitely extended all Chinese Exclusion Laws.  Text
  • 1904: Congress made permanent all Chinese Exclusion Laws
  • 1943 Repeal: Congress repealed all laws “relating to the exclusion and deportation of the Chinese.”  Congress permitted 105 persons of Chinese descent to immigrate into the United States each year, and enabled persons of Chinese descent to become American citizens.   The 1943 repeal, however, was enacted a wartime measure to counteract enemy propaganda after China became an ally of the United States during World War II, with little acknowledgment of the injustice of the laws.  Neither then nor afterward has Congress expressed regret at its passage of the Chinese Exclusion Laws.  Text


No such information appeared to be in the file, so while we can presume that Papa Kwock would have been found a natural born citizen based on his birth in the United States, it probably would have taken more the above out-of-court statement by Ernest Michaelis. Just guessing, but this is probably why the SCOTUS defaulted to  “when they were permanently domiciled in the United States.

Therefore, Maskell’s statement is not deceptive, and the natural born citizen status afforded Kwock Jan Fat was NOT based on the citizenship of his parents which was presumptively by law, that they were Chinese.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Here and There. Here is, of course, Me, and The Birther Think Tank. There is, the other guys.

The Paraclete Jumps To Another Wrong Conclusion

Chinese Checkers Is More Difficult When You Lose Your Marbles

Well,  Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete, ventured out of his comfy nest made of twigs and bird droppings to attack the 53 page CRS Memo by Jack Maskell, entitled Qualifications for President and the “Natural
Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement. The Birthers are going crazy because this memo utterly destroys the two citizen-parent nonsense along with several other imaginary legal theories. The complete memo can also be found at The Birther Think Tank under Natural Born Citizenship in the Header area above.

Donofrio’s dismissal of the entire 53 page report and his entire post is presently based upon his reading of one whole sentence in the report, although we are promised additional quibbling in the future. Excerpts:

The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).


Donofrio commits at least two major errors. Let us first deal with whether or not Jack Maskell was being deceptive in his characterization. Here are excerpts from what the Supreme Court said in the Kwock Jan Fat case:

In January, 1915, Kwock Jan Fat, the petitioner, intending to leave the United States on a temporary visit to China, filed with the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco an application, as provided for by law, for a “preinvestigation of his claimed status as an American citizen by birth.”

He claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America of Chinese parents and had resided at Monterey for many years; that his mother at the time was living at Monterey, and that there were five children in the family, three girls and two boys.

But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.

Here is a link to the case:


Sooo,  the Kwock Jan Fat Court itself said:

[I]f he was born here, when [his parents] were permanently domiciled in the United States, he is a citizen, and that it was  better to err on the side of  a natural born citizen when they released him from imprisonment.

Maskell cited the Kwock Jan Fat Court as EXPLAINING:

the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….

Sorry Paraclete, but I don’t see any big difference.  The Court does not go into the citizenship of the parents. After reading what they say, one is left with the sense that it is the place of birth not the citizenship of the parents which provides the citizenship.  Else why go into “ he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States“?  Plus, “permanently domiciled in the United States” certainly leaves open the implication they were indeed Chinese nationals.  While the fact the father was native born would have probably made him a natural born citizen also, there is no other information provided to the court on that point. The Court does not go into it in their analysis.

That was an accurate summing up of the case. I would not have phrased it the same way as Maskell, but his statement is far from being deceptive. Unless of course one doesn’t like the natural born citizen language. Maybe this is just proof of what I have said all along. Two citizen-parent Birthers are reading comprehension challenged.

Now, let us deal with Donofrio’s second major error, his analysis of Kwock Jan Fat’s parents’ citizenship status. Donofrio waxes pompously:

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

Well first, from above, the Kwock Jan Fat Court characterized the parents simply as permanently domiciled in the United States. The Court does not go into any kind of analysis of their citizenship status. Several statements were made by white citizens prior to Kwock’s year long trip to China.  None expressly called Kwock’s father a citizen, although they did note he was born in America and registered to vote.  No documents were presented, and this would have simply been hearsay evidence.  But this was offered simply to prove that Kwock had been born in America, not to prove the citizenship of his father.  As a legal matter, no one on the Court knew or cared what citizenship the father adhered to.  No evidence was submitted that the Father was either a diplomat or invading soldier. And that is additional evidence that the two citizen-parent stuff is nonsense.

Further, at the time of Kwock Jan Fat case, the Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect. Wiki says:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by Chester A. Arthur on May 8, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S.  to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years. This law was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

The Act also affected Asians who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.After the Act’s passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new homes.

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus. In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy’s petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. This ruling triggered a brief boycott of U.S. goods in China.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. It also allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California that Chinese people were not allowed to marry whites was not repealed until 1948.

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed, “Exclusion of Chinese.” It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.

In 2011, the US Senate passed a resolution apologising for past discriminatory actions such as this act.


The is no evidence that Kwock’s father ever applied for certification for re-entry, something required for Chinese born here even 22 years after Wong Kim Ark.  And after reference to the Chinese Exclusion Act above, it was far from certain that Kwock’s father would have automatically been presumed to be a citizen without proof of his birth place, which would default to him being deemed a Chinese national a reasonable characterization.

And, another thing that Donofrio misses, is that the dog didn’t bark.  Similarly, the Kwock Jan Fat Court didn’t engage in an analysis of the parent’s citizenship.  The Court’s characterization is simply that they were permanently domiciled in the United States. And it stopped there.  Because the two citizen-parent stuff is just imaginary Birther law. Looking back at the facts, we can engage in that analysis, but that court didn’t.  Real courts don’t do imaginary law very well. There was no reason to inquire into their citizenship status anymore than there was to in Wong Kim Ark. 

It is important to keep in mind where we are in this discussion. A 53 page memo was written which devastates the two citizen-parent theory. In response, Leo Donofrio picks out one sentence of that memo to try to destroy its credibility. That in itself is a silly enterprise, but entirely predictable. The Birthers have a history of ignoring Reality to maintain their theory. It is not surprising that they would attempt to ignore 52+ pages of well documented legal memo to keep up their delusions.

Finally, let me give the Paraclete one last kick in the seat of the pants. How dare YOU, who have made up this two citizen-parent nonsense up out of thin air accuse anyone of misrepresenting anything?  YOU, who mangles and distorts cases like Minor v. Happersett into false precedent. What makes you think that YOU, the inventor of The Donofrio Shuffle, where you substituted the words from the dissent into the majority decision, without cites, have any right to criticize anyone? Remember The Donofrio Shuffle:

How To Do The Donofrio Shuffle: You Put The Wrong Quote In, You Take The Right Quote Out; You Put The Wrong Quote In, And You Twist It All About. . .

Go, Leo. Go in peace. Go in anger. Whatever,  just go.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Chinese Checkers. There is more than one way to play. Wiki says:

In the capture variant, all sixty game pieces start out in the hexagonal field in the center of the game board. The center position is left unoccupied, so pieces form a symmetric hexagonal pattern. Color is irrelevant in this variant, so players take turns hopping any game piece over any other eligible game piece(s) on the board. The hopped-over pieces are captured (retired from the game, as in American checkers) and collected in the capturing player’s bin. Only jumping moves are allowed; the game ends when no further jumps are possible. The player with the most captured pieces is the winner.

The board is tightly packed at the start of the game; as more pieces are captured, the board frees up, often allowing multiple captures to take place in a single move.

Two or more players can compete in this game, but if there are more than six players, not everyone will get a fair turn.


The Paraclete Gives Up The Ghost!!!

The Ghost Was Wholly Frightened By The Girl Reporter

UPDATE: On March 13, 2012 Leo Donofrio made it official and retired his blog saying:

After long consideration and discussion with my family, I am saying goodbye to this blog and the law. I am retiring my law license and will be concentrating on making films, and writing music.


Good riddance!!!

Here is my prediction from November 18, 2011, which I have re-blogged on March 14, 2012. Thanks to Patrick Colliano, from Orly’s World FaceBook Page for bringing this to my attention. What follows is the original blog:

Well, it seems that Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete,  has given up the ghost!!! After unrelenting pressure from The Birther Think Tank slamming his goofy and idiotic characterization and interpretation of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case, he has changed up his website to where he will only accept comments from attorneys who use their real name.

Legally, this is known as constructive resignation.  He isn’t going to give an Official Resignation Letter, he is just not going to show up for work anymore except for maybe 1 or 2 hours per week to check his email. Here is part of what he said, and a link to his Internet Article:


I put my name and professional reputation on everything I post at this blog.  From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law.  State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst.  If you tried to argue on a bar examination – or law school final – that the US Supreme Court in Ex Part Lockwood did not acknowledge Minor v. Happersett as a precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, you would fail.  Yet, all over the blogosphere anonymous propaganda pushing blatant falsehoods is rampant.  “NOT UP IN HERE!”

The practical effect of all this is to chase the two-citizen parent Birthers yahoos from the website. There are few attorneys who buy into the two citizen-parent Vattel nonsense, and probably even less who are willing to come out of the Birther Closet and admit it. My guess is that you would get more cross-dressing attorneys to show up in a bustier with stiletto heels than will show up and raise their hands and confess to believing it takes two citizen parents to be President.

Cross dressing is merely kinky, while  admitting to Birther Legal Fantasies is like publicly admitting  to being very stupid. The first may get you some new clients, and a date for Friday night, while the latter only draws pro bono clients who will call you 500 times per week to check exactly when Obama’s is getting frog-marched out of the White House and, to see if they can watch.

Donofrio is even changing his shtick from Imaginary Legal Theories 101 Two Citizen-Parents to Intermediate Stupid Legal Theories 201 – Citizen Presentments to a Grand Jury. It appears that Mr. Donofrio knows his audience well, thus saying verily unto them:

This does not mean that you may form your own grand jury lynch mobs.

Of course it doesn’t, but I suspect Mr. Donofrio is making a side investment in rope and pitchfork manufacturers just in case.

At any rate, it is good that Mr. Donofrio has taken the criticism leveled at him by The Birther Think Tank to heart. His nickname, The Paraclete, is a term which commonly refers to the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.  (Yes, that is a pun in the Image caption above.) In my opinion Poltergeist comes closer to describing Donofrio.

Well, when there’s something strange, in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call? . . . . Squeeky!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Shtick. Wiki says:

A shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick. “Shtick” is derived from the Yiddish word shtik (שטיק), meaning “piece”; the closely related German word Stück has the same meaning. The English word “piece” itself is also sometimes used in a similar context. Another variant is “bits of business” or just “bits”; comic mannerisms such as Laurel and Hardy’s  fiddling with their ties, or one of them looking into the camera shaking his head while the other one would ramble on. A shtick can also refer to an adopted persona, usually for comedy performances, that is maintained consistently (though not necessarily exclusively) across the performer’s career.

In common usage, the word shtick has also come to mean any talent, style, habit, or other eccentricity for which a person is particularly well-known, even if not intended for comedic purposes. For example, a person who is known locally for his or her ability to eat dozens of hot dogs quickly might say that it was their shtick.

Among Orthodox Jews, “shtick” can also refer to wedding shtick, in which wedding guests entertain the bride and groom through dancing, costumes, juggling, and silliness.

There is certainly plenty of juggling and silliness going at Mr. Donofrio’s website.

Note 2: Poltergeist. Wiki says:

The word poltergeist comes from the German words poltern (“to make noise”) and Geist (“ghost”), and the term itself literally means “noisy ghost“. Most reports of poltergeist manifestations involve noises and destruction that have no immediate or verifiable cause. Poltergeist activity has often been believed to be the work of malicious ghosts. According to Alan Kardec, the founder of Spiritism, poltergeists are manifestations of disembodied spirits of low level, belonging to the sixth class of the third order. They are believed to be closely associated with the elements (fire, air, water, earth).

Hmmm. Lets see. Fire plus air equals hot air. Water plus earth equals mudNoisy. Malicious. Yeah, definitely Mr. Paraclete is a Poltergeist.

Note 3: Just for Fun: Wiki provides this report of a Poltergeist:

Lithobolia (1698)

Main article: Lithobolia

Lithobolia, or the Stone-Throwing Devil, is a pamphlet that records poltergeist activity that allegedly took place in the tavern of George and Alice Walton in 1682. Two copies of the pamphlet exist in the British Museum. The Waltons’ tavern was located in New Castle, New Hampsire, then known as the Great Island. Lithobolia was written by “R.C.,” one Richard Chamberlain, the secretary of the colony of New Hampshire. In 1666 Chamberlain was boarding at the Walton tavern and witnessed the attack. The pamphlet was later printed in London by Chamberlain in 1698. The opening reads:

“Lithobolia”, or stone throwing Devil. Being an Exact and True account (by way of Journal) of the various actions of infernal Spirits or (Devils Incarnate) Witches or both: and the great Disturbance and Amazement they gave to George Walton’s family at a place called Great Island in the county of New Hampshire in New England, chiefly in throwing about (by an Invisible hand) Stones, Bricks, and Brick-Bats of all sizes, with several other things, as Hammers, Mauls, Iron-Crows, Spits, and other Utensils, as came into their Hellish minds, and this for space of a quarter of a year.”

I wonder if it is too late for a Grand Jury on this???

The Missing Link

Anthropologists Theorized The Homo Para-Cletus Evolutionary Branch Was Missing A Few Twigs

There is a Two -Citizen Parent Birther by the name of Leo Donofrio (aka The Paraclete) who is pushing a theory that Justia, an online publishing company, has twiddled with the links and citations to the case of Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 voting SCOTUS voting rights case which held the 14th Amendment did not grant women the right to vote.  Lacking any semblance of a legal case to support their idiotic theory that it takes two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen, these individuals have latched onto Minor v. Happersett with both hands trying to mis-represent it as such a case.

This has been discussed at length at The Birther Think Tank, but in brief, the Vattle Birthers (my sarcastic name for the two-citizen parent Birthers because of their reliance on French law, and Emerich de Vattel) have tried to twist this paragraph from Minor v. Happersett into having resolved doubts about children of foreign parents, even though the court says clearly it is NOT resolving those doubts.

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

To elevate the importance of this case, the Vattle Birthers are now trying to pretend this case was purposely hidden from the world to keep people from knowing about it during Obama’s election. This is absurd, because the case does not make any attempt to define a natural born citizen, and even if it did what the Vattle Birthers claimed, it would have been overturned by Wong Kim Ark case 23 years later. All this, and other problems with the Vattle Birther’s Theory are discussed in multiple articles here. The purpose of this Internet Article is to simply to review some of Mr. Donofrio’s Missing Links and see what they reveal.

First, here is the link to Donofrio’s (aka The Paraclete)latest Internet Article on this nonsense:


Now, let’s look at some of those wonderful cites!

Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892). [Dealt with evidence of naturalization process]

As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167:

“Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). [Dealt with naturalization process outside of the country.]

169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 702-703. The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization.”

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980) [A voting rights case.]

More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178.

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944) [A voting rights case.]

Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 193 U. S. 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 302 U. S. 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.

So, after reviewing these four cites, none of the cases dealt with natural born citizenship. One cite specifically notes the Minor Court had doubts. The remaining two were voting rights cases. Not a single case about natural born citizenship, and not one single case having any relation whatsoever to Obama’s situation. Then, the keen-eyed Girl Reporter discovered an actual case of cite scrubbing!!!  Here it is, in all its glory:

The Donofrio Shuffle (2011)

Mr. Donofrio pulls a cute trick. He accuses Justia of scrubbing the Wong Kim Ark case of this link. Just click on the image to make it larger and easier to read:

How To Do The Donofrio Shuffle: You Put The Wrong Quote In, You Take The Right Quote Out; You Put The Wrong Quote In, And You Twist It All About. . .

BUT, Donofrio does a little scrubbing and history re-writing of his own. He provides an incorrect quote from Scott v. Sandford, which is more famously known as the  Dred Scott case The case is cited in Wong Kim Ark, but here is the actual quote, not what Donofrio said it was:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

Busted Donofrio. Cold Busted. Slipping in the words you like, and leaving out what the majority decision actually said. And where exactly does one  find the words quoted by Mr. Donofrio? They are NOT in Minor v. Happersett. They are NOT in Wong Kim Ark in the majority decision. They are in the Wong Kim Ark DISSENT, the losing side. Where, oh where might those words have come from??? Let’s see, what did Donofrio say, again, from the image above:

and Scott v. Sandford (removed from US v. Wong Kim Ark) which features the following definition of natural-born citizen:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Sound familiar? It’s the same definition of natural-born citizen as in Minor v. Happersett

Well, come to find out those words are NOT the same definition as because Minor v. Happersett  is kind of doubt-y when it comes to the whole issue. Those words come from Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations.  They are cited on page 476 of the Dred Scott by Justice Daniel as part of a general citizenship discussion to the effect that slaves were not citizens, and that Dred Scott lacked the standing to sue. It started with Justice Daniel stating:

Hence it follows necessarily that a slave, the peculium or property of a master, and possessing within himself no civil nor political rights or capacities, cannot be a CITIZEN. For who, it may be asked, is a citizen?

To decide who are citizens (not natural born citizens) Justice Daniel quotes from Vattel’s Law of Nations, and also quotes from Roman law. Some of this he got from Edward Gibbon’s book,  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and some just from Roman Law. Here is a small excerpt:

The above account of slavery and its modifications will be found in strictest conformity with the Institutes of Justinian. Thus, in book 1st, title 3d, it is said: “The first general division of persons in respect to their rights is into freemen and slaves.” The same title, sec. 4th: “Slaves are born such, or become so. They are born such of bondwomen; they become so either by the law of nations, as by capture, or by the civil law.”

I guess Leo Donofrio would feel equally comfortable with feeding Christians to lions which was legal under Roman law.  The point is, that the place where Donofrio found the words in the case, what they were being quoted for had nothing to do with determining what a natural born citizen was in a legal sense. The Law of Nations book had no greater legal impact than The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire book.  Which is some more of the slipperiness that you saw above with the other cases.

But you know, when you are busy re-writing legal history yourself,  what is a little French or Swiss law slipped in every once in while. Plus, phrasing it that way makes the whole thing sound sooo much more definite. Not all doubt-y and wishy-washy like what you really find in Minor v. Happersett.

Mr. Donofrio, have you no shame???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: What is a Missing Link???  The term “missing link” refers to a species between ape and man which would prove the evolution of humans from apes.  While some people think this makes men out of monkeys, the opposite is also true and some people have made monkeys out of men. For example, take the Piltdown Man. Wiki says:

The Piltdown Man was a hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn-man”, after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery. The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown, but suspects have included Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes.

Note 2: Homo Para Cletus: The Birther Think Tank suspects Homo Para-Cletus may be such a missing link, bridging the gap between a group of apelike hominids known as Australopithicus, which first emerged in Africa around 3.9 million years ago, and Homo Habilis, the first species to be described as distinctly human, which began to appear around 2.5 million years ago.

Note 3:  While reviewing this Internet Article, I re-read what Mr. Donofrio wrote, and it is possible he was referring to Wong Kim Ark and the quote from Minor v. Happersett being similar to the Emerich de Vattel quote,  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”  It is difficult to tell. If so, then Mr. Donofrio is ever further FRIED, as I will show below.

First, you will find the proper quote from Dred Scott, as provided above,  in Section III of the  Wong Kim Ark decision.  Immediately following the Dred Scott quote in Section III of the case, you will find this quote from U.S. v. Rhodes. (Remember this section number, because it becomes important later on):

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

How SELECTIVE Mr. Donofrio is in what he presents to the readers of his blog, and the public.  First, he swaps Dred Scott quotes, and then ignores the quote from U.S. vs. Rhodes right after the one he just scrubbed out,  which completely contradicts Mr. Donofrio’s whole two citizen parents theory. Donofrio had to be there reading the Wong Kim Ark case to do the scrubbing.  Did he miss it on purpose or on accident?  That is for you to decide. Whichever, you get a little taste of why Mr. Donofrio and his Vattle Birther buds try to steer clear of Wong Kim Ark.  Hitching a ride on the WayBack Machine to 23 years before Wong Kim Ark and landing on Minor v. Happersett in 1875 is a great alternative to having to explain all that troubling language one finds in 1898.

But, on the other hand,  even if Donofrio  was trying to say that those words either came from Wong Kim Ark,  or are similar to the Minor v. Happersett language, then he is still playing games.  Those similar words from Minor v. Happersett are NOT being quoted by Wong Kim Ark for the purposes of defining natural born citizenship. Which means Mr. Donofrio either never read Wong Kim Ark and that is why he didn’t know why Minor v. Happersett was being quoted, which is pretty bad if you are a lawyer and don’t understand the most important citizenship case of all. Or, it means that he is trying to mis-lead people about the Minor Happersett case, and does not want people to know that the case wasn’t quoted to define natural born citizenship. Remember, Wong Kim Ark was the very first SCOTUS case which defined natural born citizenship.

The Wong Kim Ark case is provided here at the top of this page, in the header, so you can verify what I am about to tell you for yourself.  The particular Minor v. Happersett quote is found in Section V of the decision, which discussed the 14th Amendment.   Here is how those words from Minor v. Happersett came to be in Wong Kim Ark.

In a previous case, the Slaughterhouse Cases, which were decided in 1873, 2 years before Minor v. Happersett in 1875, one of the judges, Justice Miller, made a comment which the losing side in Wong Kim Ark tried to use to say that the 14th Amendment did not apply to foreigners. From the Wong Kim Ark case, with my italics and bolding:

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

16 Wall. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities. . .

To show that remark was not the intent of either Justice Miller, or the other Slaughterhouse Cases judges, the Wong Kim Ark judges said that could not have been what those judges meant, because just 2 years later in Minor v. Happersett, those same judges said that “allegiance and protection” in connection to citizenship, were “reciprocal obligations.” Here is the exact wording from Wong Kim Ark:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

Note, that the Minor v. Happersett quote is NOT being accepted by the judges to define natural born citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark judges consider it a voting rights case.  The case is simply being quoted here for the purpose of refuting an alternative interpretation of another case having nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Mr. Donofrio, however, claims either those words, or similar language is being quoted to define natural born citizenship, which had already been defined by the Wong Kim Ark judges in Sections II and III of the case.   Oh well. I guess when it comes to scrubbing and re-writing legal history, what is true of certain smelly forms of hot air,  holds true here, and the faker is the maker.

Note 4: Cold Busted means:

To get caught doing something you shouldn’t and are  convicted guilty of said act to 100% certainty.  Usually by your trifling girlfriend.

“Yo. My girl walked in on me in bed with her sister. Tried to tell her it wasn’t me.”
“Dawg, you got Cold Busted!”

Note 5:  I had to edit this Internet Article some, once I found out where it was in the Dred Scott decision that Donofrio was pulling the Vattel language.  He was not nice enough to tell people what purpose the language was being quoted for, or that it was located in a concurring opinion.  Sooo I had to read the whole case to bust him out.  But, the WayBack Machine can probably document the changes if that kind of stuff interests you.

Bonus: Alternative Image for this Internet Article:

The Plane Facts Knocked Homo-Para Cletus Off His Perch