Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia
According to the latest docket posting (see my “Supreme Court Info” section on top right of sidebar), Cort Wrotnowski, Plaintiff in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, has just had his case submitted by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia to the regular weekly Conference of the full Court slated for December 12.
In a previous posting, Leo commented that Cort’s case is procedurally much more sound than his was.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Leo and Cort’s recent joint commentary on Cort’s case being distributed to Conference follows…
-Phil
WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA – DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 – SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTEDÂ TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizenPRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12.  The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject.  This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.  In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen†eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age.  Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States.  The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil.  If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Cort Wrotnowski
DCL,
While your theory is merely a theory at this time, looking at SCOTUS’ Orders page certainly shows that the Supremes do grant requests on Mondays and not just Fridays.
Then again, maybe you have a different agenda…?
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil
The case is not on the SCOTUS list of cases granted Cert on today according to the SCOTUS website. This is likely over.
(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2008
CERTIORARI GRANTED
08-295 08-307
) ) )
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., ET AL. V. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.COMMON LAW SETTLEMENT COUNSEL V. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The
cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted
for oral argument.
08-310
POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. VALDEZ, AK
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
Go get ‘em, Leo!
It will not be enough to have the court just invalidate Obama’s eligibility. It it happens, then the extent of Obama’s knowledge, the extent of his duplicity, the extent of his callous exploitation must also be exposed. My children and your children need to see that there still is such a thing as right, and wrong. They need to see their parents bear witness to what is right and good about our country. And we, their parents, can do that by accepting nothing less than the full measure of justice.
I take Leo’s word for it that Cort’s case is a whole lot stronger than his. Leo basically had so many problems that he encountered along the way, then on top of it all, spent nights without sleep working on his rushed case. Also, this Chester Arthur story just seemed to fall into his lap. I just love it and how it came about.
Justice Scalia is a pretty wise old bird and one of the brightest Justices on the Court. I doubt he would have moved Cort’s case along after Justice Thomas and the Court did not move Leo’s almost indentical case along. Leo’s case was a rushed filing because the NJ courts gave leo the run around. The crooked NJ courts then changed the paperwork to make it a mess. Leo helped Cort write up his case and Leo said it is a much better case.
I also think Justice Scalia would not move it to Dec. 12th Conference if he did not think 3 more Justices would find some merit in Cort’s case. The dectective work Leo has done regarding Chester Arthur is amazing and interesting.
Leo and Cort’s story is incredible and sadly being totally ignored by the mainstream media. It makes the Watergate story from Bernstein and Woodward look bland considering they had the Washington Post 7 more than half of Capitol Hill backing them. Leo and Cort only have Plains Radio and a lot of Americans backing them.
I hope many will do what i have done. Make at least a 50.00 donation to an organization called Faith2action. It ran the full page ad in the Washington Times presenting the reasons why Obams is ineligble to be president. It has 60 second ads (made by the company who made Phillip Berg’s). For every 12,000 they can run one on FoxTV between 5 and 6. Their webiste is http://www.faith2action.org. (I am not a part of the orgnaization nor know anyone in it – except for having read much on their website and having read the ad they ran in the Washington Times.
It certainly does appear that our lower courts, at least in those states we are aware of, are filled with a lot of people ignorant of the law and its proceedings. How then can anyone expect Justice to be served?
6American Natural Born
December 8th, 2008 20:56
Phil and Angry Dave,
It does not necessarily mean that there are 4 in favor of the merits; but it does at least mean that Donofrio vs Wells was declined for proceedural reasons.
Playing devil’s advocate here…. could it not also just mean that in order to prevent continuing resubmittals to other justices if chosen justice denies filing on his/her own, the resubmittal justice simply goes through the procedure of referring to whole court for conference in order to get the thing stopped for good? Hopefully not so in Cort’s case, but you wonder.
American Natural Born,
Your thought also has merit, as a wikipedia look-up of “certiorari” will show that when the Supremes deny any further consideration of a given case, it does not set precedent, but instead simply allows a lower court ruling to stand.
-Phil
Phil and Angry Dave,
It does not necessarily mean that there are 4 in favor of the merits; but it does at least mean that Donofrio vs Wells was declined for proceedural reasons. As the court must presume that the NJ courts were right and Donofrio wrong, on proceedures, until courts prove otherwise. Thus Donofrio was sabotagued by Sabatino from the start….
Angry Dave,
While I do find it odd that Associate Justice Scalia would distribute a nearly identical case to Conference instead of simply denying it on the same day that Donofrio’s case was denied (unless they’ve discussed all of this at their private Conference, as you’ve suggested), I would still caution on being as optimistic as to say that the case would be granted a formal hearing on Friday.
Rather, I think it would be better said that we are “expecting the best out of SCOTUS, but preparing for the worst,” and will be exceedingly surprised if they decide to take up Wrotnowski’s case.
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil
Landstander,
Yep, you got it right. Donofrio’s case had lots of excess “baggage”, due to intentional mishandling by court clerks at both state and supreme levels. It is likely that Scalia suggested taking up Cort’s case over Leo’s for that reason.
Regardless, if Leo’s case had been dismissed on it’s merits, there is no way Scalia would have distributed a fundamentally identical case only 3 days later. This case has already been discussed in conference by the 9 justices. According to protocol, Scalia must believe that at least 3 other justices will want to actually hear a case that he distributes for conference. Very few cases are actually distributed for conference.
Bottom line, the case WILL be granted a formal hearing on Fri.
Landstander,
Don’t forget that it was Cort’s case that they decided to re-route to the anthrax facility.
-Phil
Hmm.
If the arguments are the same as Donofrio’s case, why on earth would Scalia not just deny the stay himself?
The only reason I can see him taking this to conference is because Donofrio’s case was not rejected on its merits, but something procedural.
I don’t want to get my hopes up, but does anyone have a better explanation?
[...] Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia December 8th, 2008 [...]