Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Major Updates on Conference, Cort’s Renewed Application
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a Conference this Friday, December 5 to consider granting Certiorari. If this is granted, then the “Rule of Four” concept will then be in play.
If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.
Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski’s case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.
There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)):
Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]
We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.
Update:Â Dr. Orly Taitz’s commentary. Also, CountUsOut is showing a rallying cry to protest in front of SCOTUS, Friday, December 5, 8am ET until whenever.
Update: Thanks to AtlasShrugs for an honorable mention and helping to bring this story further to light.
The following is the full text of Leo’s blog entry…
CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREMEÂ COURT
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen[UPDATE] Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski will be on Plains Radiotonight at 7:00 PM EST
CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS:Â DONOFRIO V. WELLSÂ WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULLÂ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTÂ AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS
by Bob Vernon, Honest American News - Plains Radio Network
December 1, 2008
On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was updated to show that the “emergency stay application†to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.â€Â At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court.
In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone. Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference.
Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm – by direct contact with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office – that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court.
On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio’s emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008. Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference. Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled:
A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
In that document, on page 3, it advises:
“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.â€
Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference. Mr. Donofrio was correct.
Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas.
Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight. SeePlainsradio.com for details.
Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas
save to my Bookmarks )
Rich, Post #13
You’re a LIAR or I’m mistaken!
You’re whole argument centers on this quote of yours:
“Under the Naturalization Act of 1795, amended in 1798, a person had to be 14 years a resident of the US, giving 5 years intent on becoming a US citizen.”
But searching Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#In_the_United_States
“The Naturalization Act of 1795 set the initial parameters … resident for five years or more. The Naturalization Act of 1798, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts…requirement from five to fourteen years…It was repealed in 1802.”
It was repealed in 1802. Did you forget that Rich?
Hang on to your tin foil hats people the paddy wagon is on its way!
Obama has already admitted that he is a “Citizen of the World.”
http://www.groundbreaking.com/Good_Sam/Rhyme003.htm
If I understand right there are two more hurdles before Jan. 20 electoral college Jan.15 and Jan. 6 conformation by congress. Congress will confirm because of partizenship even if he is not legal voters remember this when election comes around for congress if we ever have anymore. America batten down the hattaches we are in for a storm no matter what!
Think about how and why, and who got this man elected and you will surely understand that nothing will stand in the way of his presidency. The power brokers have annointed their chosen one. Mark my words, nothing will come of this. Absolutely positively nothing. You are peeing on the big dog’s porch. Imagine the unrest in this country at this crucial time in history if the SCOTUS were to rule in Denofrio’s favor. It will be swept under the rug.
I would have to agree that Chester A. Arthur will be a precedent which will undermine Denofrio’s efforts.
As to Chester Arthur’s father… the 1798 naturalization act was repealed by the act of 1802 which returned the requisite to five years of residence to naturalize. the 14 years requirement was only in existence between 1798 and 1801.
So Chester Arthur’s father would have only needed to be a resident for five years, not 14. He married an American woman in 1821 and they had Chester in 1829 or 1830, nobody is sure which year Arthur was born. Regardless, Arthur was haunted with claims of ineligibility for POTUS from then until now. Hardly the President you’d want to hang your hat on to prove eligibility.
Response to Rich
The matter of Chester A. Arthur and this precident is not the issue, it does not apply to B. Hussein. It is a red herring. No one denies Obama’s father’s non-American status. The issue is can his American citizen mother pass on “natural born ” citizenship if the birth occured outside the US, it’s territories and possesions. Here is the catch. Between 1952 and 1986 the law clearly states that an American citizen mother can only pass on natural born citizenship if she has been in the US for a minimum of 5 years AFTER the age of fourteen. She gave birth to little Barry in Kenya at the age of 18.
So to the would be king and his blind followers: TOUGH NOODLES !
The Supreme Court does not like to issue rulings on whether hypothetical future events would be constitutional. Therefore, do not expect a ruling from the Supreme Court until Monday December 17, the first business day after the electors meet. They will likely direct the FEC to establish a procedure for certifying federal candidates prior to elections in the future.
Per the 20th Amendment (passed in 1933) if the President cannot serve the VP becomes acting president. That would put a President-Elect who is not a citizen in limbo (and prevent Biden from naming a new VP) until Obama either tenders his resignation or is impeached and removed by Congress.
It would be a felony for a non-citizen to vote. As I understand it, Obama has never voted. He also resigned from the Senate a couple weeks ago…Senators are constitutionally required to be citizens for at least 7 years. Obama has dodged making sworn responses to the claim that he is not a US citizen and not a natural-born US citizen, so that keeps him out of legal jeopardy for perjury. I doubt that either President Bush or President Biden would want their US Attorneys to prosecute Obama for fundraising fraud, out of fear of causing race riots. So Obama will surely walk free after perpetrating one of the grandest frauds in US History.
[...] Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a Conference this Friday, December 5 to consider granting Certiorari. If this is granted, then the “Rule of Four” concept will then be in play. If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote. Whoa! The Right Side of Life Blog Archive Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Major Updates on Con… [...]
We just want the truth. Obama, show us the original birth certificate!!!
Tom in Texas,
The Electoral College meets to vote by December 15.
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil
Don Little Mind:
Osama is President after the Electorial College votes him President (Dec.21st?).
I will never accept Obama as legally President until I am satisfied that he is a natural born citizen. If it is proven that he is a natural born citizen and is legally established as President I will begin immediately to work to have him impeached for election and fund raising fraud. This nation will not be safe until Obama is behind bars.
Y’all are morons. Obama is President. Accept it!!!!
Spirit,
Interesting theory on your part.
One problem: the evidence shows that the _Court’s Clerk Office_ is what has been “publicly and repeatedly criticizing [We the People],” so I think you have the situation exactly backwards.
But, that’s OK. That’s your perspective. We will all know what happens on Friday.
-Phil
If one wants to prejudice the court against their case, a good way to do it would be to publicly and repeatedly criticize the court and its clerks before the case is heard. An experienced lawyer would not take this “bull in a china shop” approach unless he wanted to lose.
Spirit,
Actually, if you read through my various suit Categories to the right (under 2008 Election), I think you’ll see that it’s Berg’s case that may not have established standing to hold up at SCOTUS.
Further, both Cort and Leo have essentially “cross-referenced” each other’s cases, as it were, and they address a number of standing issues already, including providing precedent-setting examples of natural born citizens.
Thanks for the comment.
-Phil
[...] detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information: There is also a rumor that the full Court may be [...]
The way that gay marriage was briefly legalized in California was that California’s AG, Jerry Brown, intentionally made an unconvincing argument on behalf of the people of California, and succeeded in losing the case.
I suspect that Obama’s strategy here is 1) Try to cement in people’s mind that he is the president, so that overturning it becomes too politically risky for the Supreme Court, 2) Deny the case oxygen in the form of fresh news or facts, 3) Plant a false plaintif who intends to lose.
Watch out for that false plaintif. It is my opinion that the NJ case was not as well reasoned and documented as the Berg Case from PA, and if the NJ case is the one heard at the Supreme Court, Obama would win. Then the case would never get heard again.
[...] here: The Right side of Life Popularity: 1% [?] var AdBrite_Title_Color = ‘0000FF’; var AdBrite_Text_Color = ‘000000′; [...]
[...] The Right Side of Life. [...]
To Rich, about President Chester Arthur:
So essentially your argument is if Chester Arthur was President, then Obama can be too. You claim that President Arthur’s father was not a US citizen. Sorry, I’ve looked into it, and I don’t think it “cripples Donofrio’s case.”
Your assertion about President Arthur’s eligibility would not act as judicial precedent, for two reasons. (1) The Constitution sits above all subsequent laws and interpretations, and the Constitution itself represents the final authority, not he subsequent laws or interpretations. (2) There has never been a judgment against Chester Arthur’s eligibility. This matter was never brought before the Supreme Court, or any other court in President Arthur’s lifetime. Thus, it isn’t a matter of judicial precedent, because it was never adjudicated by any court. Your argument centers around historical speculation, not judicial precedent.
Basically, this is like the driver who gets stopped for speeding, and says, “Hey, yesterday I think I saw a car speeding through here, and no one stopped him!†Fine sir, but we’re here today, and we caught you speeding today, so here’s your ticket.
Rich—-
Your thinking doesn’t apply to Obama because his father was never a citizen of the United States…he was always an alien.
Rich
December 2nd, 2008 13:47
First, I am in full support of efforts to have Obama disclose his vault birth certificate. We need to protect the constitution.
Unfortunately for Mr. Donofrio, the Supreme Court will rely on precedent when ruling on his case. And they will probably rule to dismiss the case, here’s why:
We’ve had 43 Presidents. The constitution states that anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution is eligible to service as President. That covers 10 Presidents, the last of which was our 12th President, Zachary Taylor. Of the 33 other Presidents, 32 were citizens of the US and were children of parents who either were US citizens or became US citizens at the adoption of the US Constitution.
The one exception was Chester A. Arthur. Arthur was the son of William Arthur and Melvina (Stone) Arthur. Melvina was born and raised in Vermont, after Vermont had become a state under the US constitution. William Arthur was born in Ireland, graduated from the University of Belfast in 1817 and emigrated to Quebec. There, he taught school. He met Melvina and married her in 1821, moving to the US.
Under the Naturalization Act of 1795, amended in 1798, a person had to be 14 years a resident of the US, giving 5 years intent on becoming a US citizen.
William Arthur emigrated to Vermont in 1821 and Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. At the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, his father was still an Irish citizen.
According to Donofrio’s lawsuit, he contends even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was a Kenyan (British possession at the time in 1961) meaning he was not “natural born.â€
In 1829, William Arthur was still a citizen of Ireland.
This makes an easy ruling for the Supreme Court to dismiss his case.
Again, I fully support the ID check on Obama. But the information clearly cripples Donofrio’s case.
====================================
But Obama’s father was never a citizen of the US as you contend this William Arthur was??? I don’t think it is the same.
David Horowitz’s Answers Critics on Slighting “Rule Of Lawâ€
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1148
I don’t know what to think. All I know is that this place will go up in flames if the Supreme Court overturns the people on this election…
I posted and submitted to 30 social bookmarks. Hope it helps.
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1126
[...] The Right Side Of Life Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred [...]
[...] Cort Wrotnowski, Plaintiff in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, has just had his SCOTUS docket updated (link on upper right sidebar, “Supreme Court Info”) to show that his renewed stay application has, in fact, been submitted to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. It has also been properly back-dated to November 29, as was originally sent prior to the “suspicion” of anthrax(!). [...]
[...] From Right Side of Life: [...]
[...] the Right Side of Life There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)): Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine] [...]
“We are a nation of laws, not people.”
I had the same thought as well, and if it should turn out to be true that Obama is not legally eligible to be President, than good deal. I guess I’m not up to speed on the issue. I’ll stay tuned to see what the Court determines. I have you book marked.
Rich,
While I don’t have time to go through every posting for you, I would recommend you take a look at the Donofrio and Wrotnowski Category links, to the right, where you will find numerous postings many suits — most of which have been named especially in Wrotnowski’s suit (maybe the reason why it was “suspected” of anthrax…) — that would be considered for your claim.
I only wish more people were following all of this, as most of the bases have been covered, to date.
Thanks for commenting.
-Phil
It is time for all the readers of these blogs to do what you can. Post articles to news article comments; contribute to Donofrio, Berg, etc. ; call local news people; show up at the Supreme Court on Friday; whatever you can do – DO IT!
[...] Cort Wrotnowski, Plaintiff in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, today hand delivered 10 copies his renewed Stay Application to the Supreme Court security booth this morning at 10:30am et (remember that someone at SCOTUS decided to re-route his mailed application because of “suspicions” of anthrax!). [...]
First, I am in full support of efforts to have Obama disclose his vault birth certificate. We need to protect the constitution.
Unfortunately for Mr. Donofrio, the Supreme Court will rely on precedent when ruling on his case. And they will probably rule to dismiss the case, here’s why:
We’ve had 43 Presidents. The constitution states that anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution is eligible to service as President. That covers 10 Presidents, the last of which was our 12th President, Zachary Taylor. Of the 33 other Presidents, 32 were citizens of the US and were children of parents who either were US citizens or became US citizens at the adoption of the US Constitution.
The one exception was Chester A. Arthur. Arthur was the son of William Arthur and Melvina (Stone) Arthur. Melvina was born and raised in Vermont, after Vermont had become a state under the US constitution. William Arthur was born in Ireland, graduated from the University of Belfast in 1817 and emigrated to Quebec. There, he taught school. He met Melvina and married her in 1821, moving to the US.
Under the Naturalization Act of 1795, amended in 1798, a person had to be 14 years a resident of the US, giving 5 years intent on becoming a US citizen.
William Arthur emigrated to Vermont in 1821 and Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. At the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, his father was still an Irish citizen.
According to Donofrio’s lawsuit, he contends even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was a Kenyan (British possession at the time in 1961) meaning he was not “natural born.”
In 1829, William Arthur was still a citizen of Ireland.
This makes an easy ruling for the Supreme Court to dismiss his case.
Again, I fully support the ID check on Obama. But the information clearly cripples Donofrio’s case.
madcap,
Unfortunately, Mr. Horowitz has invoked a flawed premise.
We are a nation of laws, not people.
If “We the People” all decided that free speech or weapon ownership is wrong _and we decided to amend the Constitution as such,_ then so be it.
However, what Mr. Horowitz is suggesting is that the Constitution should be beholden to the People _outside_ of the amendment process. That is plain wrong on a number of levels.
We don’t get to decide which laws we’re going to follow and which we aren’t, and if we’re going to change the law, we’re going to do it through the processes described, not simply on the whim of how we feel at any given time.
Further, Mr. Horowitz’ premise that 65+ million people would be disenfranchised is correct, but he draws the wrong conclusion. It’s not the Constitution’s fault for the disenfranchisement; it’s (potentially) the Democratic Party’s problem and, quite possibly, a problem with the Secretaries of State across America.
The Constitution is not the problem; Barack Obama is the problem. He is already on record (through posts on this site) for declaring himself eligible to be POTUS.
Now _that_ is no small thing.
Thanks for your comment.
-Phil
[...] detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information: There is also a rumor that the full Court may be [...]
Well, I’m not pleased at all with the election of Obama, but I have to agree with the e-mail I received from David Horowitz…
E-mail From David Horowitz-Chill Out!
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1097
[...] detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing [...]
[...] detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information: There is also a rumor that the full Court may be [...]
Old Ted up there left the identical comment on my blog.
http://www.blogordie.com/2008/11/obama-citizenship-denial-final-summary/#comment-52409
To our leader Leo Donofrio and everybody,
Please do NOT give up! This is exactly what they want us to do – to give up and let them rob us of our freedon, our liberty and our country! If our founding fathers had given up their fight we won’t be enjoying our free country now.
We will seek justice to the end. We will do whatever it takes to uphold the Constitution. Nothing can stop us. The truth will prevail. We can overcome corruption, deceits and whatever they throw at us. The fact that they are resorting to such despictable tactics as using the “anthrax test” as excuse to delay the case show that they are really frightened that the case will be heard. We have made progress and we simply should not and cannot give up now. Leo, we are behind you 100%. Time and patience is on our side. Even if they managaed to drag it on they will only make it worse for themselves – an ineligible president will cause chaos. When/If that happens, we will have even stronger voices, greater strengths to wake up the waylaid Americans, put the traitors where they belong, and put our country back on the right track.
DO NOT GIVE UP!
A NJ resident
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1317 [...]
[...] In my view, Mr. Berg is essentially taking what’s been learned across the country and attempting to tailor his case along the same lines as what Donofrio v. Wells and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz are doing: request that the Supremes stay the Electoral College vote until Barack Obama’s eligibility can…. [...]
Does anyone know the identity or position of the individual at the Supreme Court whom Cort spoke with who told Cort about his case being sent to the lab? Could it have been another Clerk….or what he/she relaying the action taken by another? Do the clerks have the authority on their own to send materials to such labs?
“Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!
I appreciate your update. This is a glimmer of hope in a sea of dispair where gross deception on many levels has resulted in the USA electing a man nobody knows. Our mass media can never again be trusted, and must be replaced with other sources of information for the common man.