Donofrio v. Wells: SCOTUS Denies Application of Stay
The Supreme Court of the US has denied an application of stay in the case of Donofrio v. Wells.
From today’s Orders:
08A407
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
It is likely that the full Court has now agreed with Associate Justice Souter’s original denial of Leo’s emergency stay application.
If this therefore means the end of the road for this case at SCOTUS, it basically means the matter should be handled back at the State level (per the wikipedia entry for certiorari; see my thoughts here). Be aware that when the Supremes make such denials, it is not precedent-setting.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits is located here.
Leo’s response follows; it is true that, to date, nothing has happened with Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and Leo discusses about how Cort’s suit doesn’t have the same procedural flaws that his did.
Leo’s goal, incidentally, was accomplished:
The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.  Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It’s important for history to record that.
This posting updated throughout the day.
-Phil
[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument.  But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.  Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]
DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILLÂ PENDING
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizenMy application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.
Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State [my link] is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.
After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.
My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal†rather than the “direct appeal†that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Dec. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does.  It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.
All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.
I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.
Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.
I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.
One point people have made is that because the man Obama’s mother “married†first was actually Muslim but more to the point ALREADY MARRIED to another woman, then although by Muslim law she was married to that man, (since by Muslim law a man is allowed to have 4 wives), still, by American law, a man is allowed to have only one wife at a time, therefore since Obama senior was already married, his “marriage†to Stanley Ann Dunham never truly occurred legally by American law.
Therefore, Stanley Ann Dunham was in fact an unwed mother.
Because she was an unwed mother, by US law, in that situation, birthright is ONLY given through the mother.
The unwed mother would have had to have resided in the United States for the year preceding the birth of her child.
However, since Stanley Ann Dunham says that she lived in Hawaii for the year preceding little Barack Obama II’s birth, she could NOT have passed on US citizenship to him. And this is why:
BECAUSE
Hawaii had NOT become joined to the United States at that time, and was not for several years afterwards.
Therefore, Barack Obama II was NOT given ANY US citizenship at birth.
Therefore at least in terms of his birth, Barack Obama II has no US natural born citizenship.
As such, Barack Obama II has NO eligibility to run for President of the United States.
Darn those anti-bigamy laws anyway!
Enjoy.
People might notice that I placed copies of this post of mine on other websites/forums. I am just trying to get people to think about this as an alternative point of view in case the ones being used don’t get anywhere.
Phil, Obama has admitted to his father being a foreign citizen. That is evidence enough…
There is one other case and only one other case decided today where both Stay and Certiorari were adjudicated. That case shows both Stay and Certiorari were denied.
ref: DOMANTAY, MARGARITO I. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
But Leo’s Certiorari was not denied… does that suggest his case is still alive and Certiorari is pending further review or…
Kris,
See my Supreme Court Info, top right of sidebar. It has Cort’s and Leo’s filings there.
-Phil
When all of the cases that have been brought before all of the courts have all gotten the same results, isn’t that a sign that maybe this is not a winning argument?
But they haven’t really gotten to the question of “Natural Born Citizen” yet. Most cases are denied due to lack of standing or excuses by those in authority that they have “no authority”. And we don’t know the reason for denial in Leo’s case. It could very well be the messy NJ courts mishandling which then muddies any basis for SCOTUS acceptance.
glsmarlton
December 8th, 2008 12:21
Kris, I would think that if all the courts had evidence of a real BC they would mention it, one would assume.
That’s the Catch 22. No one as yet has that concrete evidence. There is only supposition and lack of action on the part of Obama to prove otherwise. The proof then, so far, seems to be the burden of those who are presenting their cases. Either they somehow get it, or they are relying only on the benevolence of the courts to order it – and then on what basis? Again, that Catch 22.
Cort’s case seems to have established a basis for his SOS to have the authority to ask to see those items that would establish eligibility when there is real question about the candidate.
BTW, Phil, where can we read Cort’s entire filing? Thanks for all your good work here.
I do believe that, if people would be willing and could afford it, cases should just continue as an ongoing background setting for Obama’s everyday actions as “President”. Maybe, after so long, the public (maybe even the libs/progressives who are becoming more and more disillusioned with their messiah of change who just isn’t “changing” on their behalf) will get the drum beat and see the man behind the curtain. Maybe then, also, the media will see some reason to start chopping down the foundation for him that they themselves created and also look more closely to those unanswered questions about him. Because those who yelled “Bush” and “Change” for everything are now looking at their candidate’s most recent declarations and seeing “4 more years of Bush”! How ironic!!
glsmarlton:
Quite simply: Keep up the 401(k)s! I am, so should you.
Typically, you get free money from your employer and you get an immediate tax benefit as well.
Let me tell you something. With all of the talk of potential changes to 401(k)s in Washington, D.C., remember that the Democrats have just as many constituents as Republicans that don’t want things to screw up the 401(k)’s status as a good retirement vehicle.
-Phil
Phil,
Thanks for the update. My question for you is: to avoid Obama from taking our money, do you have any suggestions as to what to roll it over in? Maybe cd’s? Do you think they are safer than just having them in a 40-1?
We need to start to plan now. There is over 7.5 Trillon in 40-1s nationwide and he knows this. This is where he plans to hit first. I will not allow what little I have saved for him to give to people who refuse to work.
Give us readers your opinion please!
Victor,
In reality, CNN got it wrong (no surprise there). They don’t understand that it’s Barack Obama’s father that’s the issue, not his mother (though she may be, too).
Also, your characterization of “[w]hen all of the cases that have been brought before all of the courts have all gotten the same results, isn’t that a sign that maybe this is not a winning argument?”
Faulty premises:
1. All case having been brought before all the courts have not, in fact, gotten the same results. Please see my Current Lawsuit Listing page as evidence to this.
2. You are committing the propter hoc logic fallacy, best demonstrated accordingly: “If you go outside when it rains, you will necessarily catch a cold.” That is not always true, and neither is it in this situation.
3. I have maintained on this blog that long-term reform of the electoral system will have to proceed from the State level; ultimately, that’s where we have to go. After all, someone has to account for whether or not a citizen running for President is actually eligible.
Thanks for your comment.
-Phil
@American Patriot:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/08/scotus-rejects-appeal-questioning-obamas-citizenship/
“Many legal analysts questioned Donofrio’s argument.”
“The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you’re a natural born citizen,” said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site, and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court. “And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”
It’s a mistake to claim that members of the Supreme Court have “committed acts of treason or violated their oaths of office.”
When all of the cases that have been brought before all of the courts have all gotten the same results, isn’t that a sign that maybe this is not a winning argument?
glsmarlton,
The last time I checked, Leo’s case isn’t the only one pending before the Supremes.
Also, see my posting for more updated info, including Leo’s recent commentary on the situation as it now stands.
-Phil
Kris, I would think that if all the courts had evidence of a real BC they would mention it, one would assume.
However, if he infact is not a NBC as we all believe, then our military will NEVER have to obey his orders. Each service member swears the same oath to uphold our constitution as Obama is supposed to. But if he refuses, as we all know, that he is not, by not providing proof of his NBC , then our militiary does not owe allienge to him, only our country. I believe he knows this and this is why he plans on a more powerful, bigger and more funded civilian military of his own.
It’s quite obvious to all that this was a well planned action by him and his radical friends to take over our country from the inside out. This is truly getting scary.
Someone last night wrote on Donofrio’s website about the plans of stealing our 40-1s to redistribute and apparently this will happen since it looks like he may be elected. Guard your money and assets, as I believe now his entire plan was for this to happen.
What’s next–where do we go from here?
[...] 2008 Posted by mcnorman under Uncategorized | Tags: conference, Donofrio, Obama, SCOTUS | via the right side of life December 8th, [...]
The 5 or more members of the SCOTUS who adgree not to hear the case or define NBC have committed high treason and violated their oaths of office and constitutional duties.
Not only can the parties use the most popular faces to garner electoral votes and then elect their won Pres and VP their own in congress when none fail to quality, it seems they can also put in power those not qualified, and defraud the electorate of a right to vote for valid candidates in any race.
We have just lost not only the Constitution, but the right to vote and have all our rights defended.
This is the end of the Republic.
Can’t help but wonder if all of these courts had the evidence of a real BC showing a birth place of Kenya – if it would make any difference now. Would they bypass other laws?
Is it that they truly believe that the question of dual loyalties at time of birth is simply not, to their minds, an impediment, or what? I would truly like to get Clarence Thomas to speak to what this decision was based upon. Did they think that ruling for a stay would not do anything without some other basis in precedent for arguing the case, after that, for Natural Born Citizen?
Can we make those calls again for the court to explain to all the concerned citizens and speak to our need to know what this ruling was based upon?
So we are still left historically without a true definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
I would love to know the numbers re: the vote of the court.
This leaves us with the needed action to bombard Senators and Reps with their requirement to know, when they certify this man, whether he is legitimate or not. They only listen to numbers and actions of real concern. The world needs to know that millions still consider there to be a cloud over this presidency as far as its legitimacy.
Now it would appear that our country will suffer what it may deserve due to its failure to remain loyal to its expectations and responsible for its many blessings. It has, by its own volition, brought in a man with the knowledge thay he condones (as well as his wife) brutality against the most vulnerable to the point of Partial Birth Abortion and Infanticide. He will, eventually, destroy more foundations such as our faithful military and marriage. We will be purified for this. We will finally learn that “legal technicalities” have gotten to the point that they overrule our very protections and those who hate the country are now defended above and beyond our most concerned citizens.
Bruce,
Good point; something that somewhat caught my eye, but figured it was going to be completely denied at this point anyway.
However, it is technically more correct to say that the renewed stay application has been denied; I would guess this means it’s over for this case at SCOTUS.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Jeff,
Please excuse my ignorance, It appears to me that the SCOTUS has denied Leo’s motion for a “stay”. I thought Leo also requested Certiorari on the issue of eligibility. I don’t see the SCOTUS denying CErtiorari to Leo. Am I mixed up or what?
Thanks,
Bruce