The Right Side of Life "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." — 1 Thes. 5:21

Mr. Donofrio posted a call for help regarding his case, something I thought I’d post here for your edification, vis-a-vis alleged case file misconduct at the Supreme Court Clerk Office (an update is below as well)…

Dear Citizens of the United States of America,

I need your help and the US needs your help.

My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY -  US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.  

For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case.

It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court’s Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.   

The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court.  The Clerk’s office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices. 

I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court’s review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court. The Appellate Division case avoided the Constitutional issue, but the NJ Supreme Court decision raised the Constitutional issue when it specifically said in its order of denial that it had relied on  “movant’s papers” while at the same time it made no mention of Judge Sabatino’s Appellate Division order and opinion.

The NJ Supreme Court specifically relied upon “movant’s papers” in their order denying emergency relief and “movants papers” focused on the “natural born citizen” issue.

Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:

“This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant’s papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied.”

The US Supreme Court Docket fails to mention the NJ Supreme Court decision and that is completely wrong and improper.  This case continues to be subjected to Judicial/Clerical misconduct and it’s time that US Citizens, be they Democrat, Republican or 3rd party affiliated, stand up and order that the Clerk’s office of the highest Court in the land STOP interfering in a case that is rightly before the US Supreme Court.  

This is unprecedented in that the Clerk’s office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it.  It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.

More important though, is the necessity that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention.  You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

United States Supreme Court

One First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20543.  

——————————–

Please include the docket # 08A407, and a link to this blog

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to 

THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES

Thank you,

Leo C. Donofrio

 

Excellent job to all those around the Internet who helped out with the above:

Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public. THREE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED:

1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.  

2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification of such disposition of my case according to his interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 22(6) which states: 

“6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”

Mr. Bickell insisted that by “appropriately speedy means”, the Court Rule only demands he use ordinary mail.  I then asked him how is that different from the ordinary means by which you notify litigants as to the disposition of their cases?  And he replied, “It’s the same.” And I said, then how is that by “speedy  means”?  And he said I wasn’t entitled to a phone call or anything else.  And I said, “Then it’s your official position that Rule 22(6) calls for nothing more than the same notification as an ordinary case and that the words “appropriately speedy means” really have no special meaning at all.  And to this he replied, “That’s my official position.”

He also stated that he sent me a letter informing me of the disposition of my case.  I don’t know what he means.  On Thursday, Nov. 6th, by way of a phone conversation, he informed me that he decided not to submit my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter, which as I’ve said before was blatant Clerical misconduct since it’s not his job to play Supreme Court Justice.  Regardless, he never sent me a letter stating that he disposed of the case on his own.  After speaking to him on Thursday, he agreed to finally Docket the case.  But he did so erroneously as I have previously documented.  On Friday morning, he somewhat corrected the Docket, but he also made it reflect that Justice Souter had already decided the case.  And then he sent me a letter as to Justice Souter’s denial dated November 6th.

Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter.  To this he replied, “That wasn’t a disposition so I didn’t have to give you any notice.”  Incredible.  He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn’t a proper disposition I wasn’t entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by “appropriately speedy means”.  Sabotage.

He then went on to tell me that since I had asked for an “injunction” in the NJ Supreme Court, then I needed to request an “injunction” in the US Supreme Court as well.  And that assertion, besides relating to an issue of substantive law for a Supreme Court Justice to decide, was just total bunk since the nature of the relief I requested was exactly the same in NJ Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court, a stay of the ballots.  

This is truly unprecedented, my friends.

3.  Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received.  His word isn’t worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.  

Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don’t know who they are, and I can’t command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court’s actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.  

I don’t think calling Mr. Bickell will do any good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me.  Im removing the phone numbers form this post and asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the US Supreme Court.

[[Above] is the original post. I have now removed the phone numbers, but please send Justice Thomas and the other Justices snail mail letters informing them of the Docket number and nature of this case.  Thank you for your help.]

The drama continues this evening in the SCOTUS Clerk’s Office. Do heed Mr. Donofrio’s advice, however; if you choose to respond, be civil:

True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief.  Mr. Bickell informed me that he has kept all reference to the NJ Supreme Court order off the Docket for the same reason he initially did not feed the Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter back on Nov. 3rd, a semantical falsehood concocted by Mr. Bickell and/or his superiors.  

My “Motion For Emergency Injunctive Relief” before the NJ Supreme Court was brought under Rule 2:9-8, which states:

2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters

“When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court…”

A stay is a form of injunctive relief which by its nature pertains to emergent matters.  When I appealed to the US Supreme Court, I did so by making an“Application for Emergency Stay”.  Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court.  This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a “Stay” instead of“injunctive relief” when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief.  And the Rule cited by NJ Supreme Court Justice Virginia A. Long in her final denial order specifically refers to “stays and emergency orders”:

This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to RULE 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant’s papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied.” (Emphasis added.) 

If Bickell doesn’t show on the Docket that the case came from the NJ Supreme Court, it will appear, on the Docket, that I did not exhaust all of my lower court options while I most certainly did.  I had to go through a preliminary interview with a NJ Supreme Court staff attorney who recognized the emergency as the election was pending.  The staff attorney requested 9 copies of my motion, and 9 copies of my 75 page appendix which cost me $172 to make.  

I submitted all of that on Friday October, 31 at 12:27 PM.  I have the time-stamp on my Motion.  An hour later, I spoke with the staff attorney and was told that multiple Justices were going over the case together.  Finally, the NJ Supreme Court denied my request for Emergency Relief, but in so doing, they opened the door to expedited review of the United States Supreme Court when Justice Long, in her order, made specific reference to the NJ Supreme Court having “relied” on “movant’s papers” while such papers raised the Constitutional “natural born citizen” issue of first impression.

I did this by the book, the Supreme Court Rule book, but now Mr. Bickell and his keepers are trying to rewrite that book for their own purposes.

Mr. Bickell’s motives are now so important that he must be put under oath and questioned about his bizarre, unorthodox, and most likely criminal attempts to keep my case out of the eyes and minds of certain Justices of the US Supreme Court. Indeed, if Mr. Bickell’s nefarious clerical sabotage has been concocted to influence the occupancy of The White House than Mr. Bickell may eventually be charged with a felony, if not Treason.

I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell’s cavalier piracy of my rights, of yourrights, of our rights.  And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now.  I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law.  

It is time to make a stand for the law.  For what is now being done to the law in the holiest legal stronghold this world had ever seen, The United States Supreme Court, is nothing short of a blatant attempt to strangle the last breath from our dying Constitutional system of Government created by the people and for the people.  There is a force operating here with the intention of squeezing “we the people” out of the way.  And that force is dead set against a single citizen setting a virtuous example for the entire nation to witness.  Such audacity will apparently not be tolerated. 

USA, your law is under attack tonight.  Your entire system of Government is under attack with this case.  My case is on sold legal ground and it belongs before the US Supreme Court based upon established State law precedent. No exception to standing need be crafted and there are no other procedural hang ups now standing in its way.  

I have followed the law to get this case before the highest court in the land and the only thing stopping full review now is interference from a lowly clerk who is sticking it right in your face America.  He’s basically telling all who are watching this sick play unfold that he holds the keys to the building and he will decide your rights, or lack thereof under the Document.

Time to make a stand, people.  And it’s a fairly easy one to make.  All we need to do is make enough noise so that Justice Thomas and the rest of the court knows that I am coming to the US Supreme Court with my proper papers.  

Please don’t ask me for instructions on how you do this.  I cannot give such advice.  All I can do is make my case public, show the documents, quote the law and keep you informed.  Any noise you make must be of your own volition and of your own free will.  

THERE IS NO NEED TO BREAK ANY LAW.  PEACEFUL MEANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE LAW CAN BE UPHELD.  BE HEARD BUT DONT GET IN TROUBLE.  DONT BREAK THE LAW.  ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CAN’T KNOW WHO IS UNDER PRESSURE AND WHO IS APPLYING PRESSURE SO BE COOL BUT BE FIRM. TELL THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.

Warm Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

More this morning:

As of 9:53 AM, November 13, 2008, the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 has still not been updated to reflect the fact that the case…

Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey 

… now before the US Supreme Court comes directly from a final decision as to the emergency matter issued by the highest court  in New Jersey which is the Supreme Court Of New Jersey.  Mr. Bickell has consistently attempted to stop this case from being docketed properly.  And in doing so Mr. Bickell has subverted and defiled the esteemed Rules of the US Supreme Court, particularly Rules 22 and 23.

Mr. Bickell knows that, for my case to have proper standing before the US Supreme Court, I am required to exhaust all of my lower court options, which I have done.  My case was originally brought in the NJ Appelllate Division where it was delayed, subjected to misconduct and eventually denied on October 30. Then on October 31,  I brought the same action to the NJ Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court also denied my application for Emergency relief, but in doing so, the NJ Supreme Court, by the hand of the Honorable Justice Virginia A Long, relied on “movant’s papers” which contained a Constitutional issue of first impression as to the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.  (See below.)

Regardless, after numerous attempts to reason with Mr. Bickell, he still refuses to update the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 to include any reference to the NJ Supreme Court decision.  Instead, Mr. Bickell lists only the Appellate Division reference which is an incomplete record of the procedure of this case.

And in so doing, Mr. Bickell is very aware that any Justice of the Supreme Court who may take an interest in this case might come to an erroneous conclusion that the case is prematurely before the US Supreme Court.  This is one of the many dangers inherent in Mr. Bickell’s sabotage of this case.   

Mr. Bickell, through his illegal actions, has now taken control of the Docket at the United States Supreme Court and in so doing, Mr. Bickell is operating such Docket under his own brand of martial law.  Mr. Bickell’s actions are no less than a declaration of war upon the Rules of Supreme Court practice.  

I am calling for Mr. Bickell to be fired from his position and for him to be arrested by the Justice Department for criminal abuse of power and dereliction of duty.  Mr. Bickell needs to be put under oath and questioned in a court of law as to the motivations behind his drastic attempt at overthrowing our legal system of justice and to see if there are other conspirators involved with him in this attack on our highest court’s authority.  

If this lowly clerk can single-handedly deny justice according to his own whim and deceit, than the highest court in our land is effectively subverted to the cause of injustice.  And such a house divided cannot stand.  What you are seeing today, via Mr. Bickell’s blatant deceit and judicial treachery, is a direct attempt to change the fabric and ability of justice as we have always known it.  This rebellion from the Supreme Court Rules of Court, if allowed to stand, will signal the beginning of the end of our Constitutional form of Government.  

If, after having reviewed the documents and legal arguments at this site, you believe, as I do, that Mr. Bickell should be thrown out of his office at the US Supreme Court, then please call the US Supreme Court and speak your mind. [see Mr. Donofrio's page for numbers]

11:43 AM 

Mr. Danny Bickell, stay clerk of the US Supreme Court, has finally corrected the Docket for US Supreme Court Case No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, to reflect that this case has come to the US Supreme Court directly from a final order denying emergency relief by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Having this case properly docketed is a major procedural necessity to the case having proper standing to be decided in the US Supreme Court.  

Thanks to all who made a stand to see that this Docket was corrected.

Warm Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

1:31 PM

Its important that letters are still forwarded to his Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as well as Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court.  Now that the Docket reflects that my case has followed proper procedure through all possible lower court jurisdictions, I will resubmit the application for an emergency stay of the national election to Justice Clarence Thomas.  

Supreme Court Rule 22(4) (operating in tandem with Rule 23) gives me the right, by law, to resubmit the Application for Emergency Stay to “any other Justice” once the original stay application has been denied.  According to the Docket, and a letter I received from Mr. Danny Bickell, Justice Souter denied the stay application on November 6th.

So, according to the Rules, I may now resubmit the application to “any other justice.”

However, there is still one issue which must be dealt with before I resubmit the stay application.  Rule 22 (4) requires that I write a letter to the Clerk indicating which Justice I am renewing the stay application to.  This letter is supposed to go to William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court, but the “stay clerk” is Mr. Danny Bickell and I’m certain that the renewed stay application will go directly through him.

Once the “Clerk” receives it, Rule 22(1) prescribes the following duty to the Clerk in relation thereto:

Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices

• 1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief. (Emphasis added.)
  

This means that the original stay application should have been submitted to Justice Souter on Mon. Nov 3rd, the day I filed it, the day it was stamped.  But it wasn’t “transmitted promptly”, it was disposed of promptly by Mr. Bickell, and it was disposed of wrongly. Eventually it was actually transmitted to Justice Souter, but only after I read Mr. Bickell the riot act.

Ponder this; if Mr. Bickell had been intially correct in disposing of the stay application on Monday Nov. 3rd, then why did he eventually Docket it and submit it to Justice Souter on Nov. 6th?  The answer is obvious.  He was wrong to have disposed of it, and he was wrong to have failed to notify me of such disposition and he’s been wrongly trying to dispose of it in one way or another ever since.

I anticipate that Mr. Bickell will be handed my renewed “application for an emergency stay” by interns in the Clerk’s office, even though, technically, according to Rule 22(1) the letter accompanying the application must be addressed to the “Clerk”.  The Clerk is “William K Suter”.  

Please send Mr. Suter letters indicating that you, as an American citizen, are outraged at the disrespect and sabotage this case, Donofrio v. Wells, US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407,  has been subjected to.  Mr. Suter’s address  is: 

William K. Suter, Clerk

United States Supreme Court

Office of the Clerk

Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

[Please dont' confuse Clerk Suter with Justice Souter.]

When you write your letters to; Justice Thomas, the other Supreme Court Justices, and Clerk Suter, it would be good to include a paragraph explaining that the case reflects a matter of vital public importance, depends on a genuine Constitutional issue of first impression, is coming directly from the NJ Supreme Court and is relying on the “stay application” precedent issued by the most Honorable Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):

“Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bickell failed to recognize the precedent set in that case when he initially refused to pass on my “stay application” to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd.  When I spoke to Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6th, he told me my stay application should have come with a “Full Petition for Writ of Certiorari”. It was this decision which delayed Justice.  This was a decision of substantive law made by a clerk who subverted the authority of the US Supreme Court.  And his decision, despite being an act of direct insubordination, was also legally flawed.

As was done in Bush v. Gore, also a Presidential election case involving an emergency, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recognizing the exigency of the circumstances, decided to relax its formal requirements and instead, the Honorable Court, in granting the Stay, decided to accept the less formal Stay Application as if it were a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and then they granted Certiorari.  

This was the precedent I was proceeding under.  Had Mr. Bickell followed the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Souter would have received my emergency Stay Application on Monday Nov. 3rd, shortly after 4:30PM.  But Mr. Bickell didn’t Docket the case until Nov. 6th, and only after I protested vehemently.  While arguing with me, Mr. Bickell told me that it didn’t matter what I did or what law I cited, “Justice Souter will just deny it…and Justice Thomas will also deny it.”  

How dare he speak for our Supreme Court.  The audacity is disgusting.

According to the Docket and Mr. Bickell’s letter, Justice Souter apparently denied the Stay Application on that same day.

Had Justice Souter denied it on Nov. 3rd instead, and had Mr. Bickell then followed Rule 22(6), which says that I was to be informed of the “disposition” of the case  “by appropriately speedy means”, i.e., a phone call, then I could have resubmitted the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas at 9:00 AM on Nov. 4th, Election Day, and since the case was bi-partisan, and at that time there was no winner, Justice Clarence Thomas could have granted the stay, stopped the Election, brought in the whole Court, and decided the “natural born citizen” issue before the voting was done.

I did everything in my power to see that this was the case, and Mr. Bickell did everything in his power to see that this wasn’t the case.

And that’s why your letters are still needed.  Mr. Bickell needs to understand that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court will be aware that this case is on its way to them and that if anybody is going to deny the stay application – “We the People” – demand that it be a genuine US Supreme Court Justice and not a clerk impersonating a Justice.  

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio

Similar Posts:

• Donofrio v. Wells: Emergency Stay Application Officially Renewed
• Donofrio v. Wells: Renewed Application for Stay to Justice Clarence Thomas
• Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Clerk Bickell Allegedly Obstructing Justice on Another Emergency Stay Application
• Donofrio v. Wells: Leo Further Explains SCOTUS’ Unique Action
• Donofrio v. Wells: Case Going to Conference December 5