Schneller v. Cortes: Justice Souter Denies Emergency Stay Application
The Supreme Court docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) for Schneller v. Cortes (Pennsylvania resident James Schneller, pro se Plaintiff) shows the following:
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A592) for a stay, submitted to Justice Souter. Jan 8 2009 Application (08A592) denied by Justice Souter.
Mr. Schneller alleges that Pennsylvania’s certified ballots were improperly transmitted to the federal government due to a stay of such activity:
UPDATE: Justice John Souter denied the application on Thursday January 8, 2008. It cannot be ascertained whether the application was denied before or after the joint session of Congress tallied the vote. Pennsylvanian James D. Schneller filed an Application for Emergency Injunction in the United States Supreme Court on December 31, 2008, requesting a stay of the Count of the electoral vote at the joint session of Congress, because Pennsylvania’s certified ballots of the Pennsylvania electoral college were transmitted to the Speaker of the Senate and other officials improperly, because a stay of that activity was in force, because of petition for mandamus No. 199 MM 2008, pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Mr. Schneller asked that the emergency action be presented for urgent action to the appropriate Judge, and notified 250 of our Senators and Representatives of this development.
He hasn’t decided whether or not to resubmit his application to another Supreme Court Justice at this time. However, Mr. Schneller did mention that “I’ll probably be appealing from any PA Supreme Court denial regardless.”
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Excerpted details of the case follow…
The case is captioned:SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08A592In Re: James D. Schneller
James D. Schneller, applicant
v.
Secretary of the Senate, Vice President Richard B. Cheney and the Congress of the United States of America, Barack Obama, respondentsAPPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY
Application for emergency stay, injunction, or writ of mandamus to Secretary of the Senate Richard B. Cheney, the Congress of the United States of America, and Barack Obama, due to lack of jurisdiction over the certified vote of the electors of the State of Pennsylvania, pursuant to pending case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania No. 199 MM 2008: James D. Schneller v. Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés, Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, Senator Barack Obama
In this motion, Mr. Schneller states new reasons for a general stay to the joint session’s tally of the electoral vote, beyond those reasons accumulating in this and related cases, including that:
” The Court has further authority to prohibit respondents’ inclusion of some State’s electors certified votes, pending proofs directed to be filed by Mr. Obama, because he has not proven his qualification to any State, nor the Federal Election Commission, nor the Secretary of State of the United States or any other official. Worse, the Democratic Party has erroneously and fraudulently certified the eligibility and qualification of their party’s candidates to any States having a requirement for such, and has in the same manner certified the party nomination to the remaining States, where required.
The Pennsylvania electors for the Democratic Party were . . sworn as to lawful fulfillment of their duty, at the electoral college, but again, in 2008, as in 2004, they did not subscribe these oaths in writing, as is required of them under Pennsylvania Constitution Article VI Section 3. No certificate promulgated in the sequence of certifications states that the electors were duly sworn. . . . “
The motion was immediately served on Vice President and Secretary of the Senate Richard B. Cheney, leadership of the Senate and House including Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell, and Barack Obama. Barack Obama has filed an answer in the Pennsylvania action.
-Phil
2burmdad,
In reality, no case has been dismissed on its merits.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Of course these cases are hopeless.
They have no factual or legal merit.
BHO II/Jr. was born in HI, and he is a natural born citizen.
The cases throw up all sorts of suppositions, but all fall short of any modicum of facts (the HI COLB, like it or not, is a prima facie proof document shown to my a state of the US, and is therefore accepted on it’s face – any rebuttal must be supported by proved facts and documents, and the burden of proof is upon the questioners; and also the common sense and accepted term of a natural born citizen is one who is born in the US – and citizenship of the parents is irrelevant). The courts are using the standing threshold to avoid the circus of faux witnesses and citations from tomes written by foreigners, etc, etc.
Face it, this waste of the courts’ time is almost over. The only “bad” thing is that because all of the cases have been “denied” without argument, there is no standard to now assert sanctions (including court costs, fines, etc.) upon those who continue to file.
Of course, in the Congress session yesterday, no member could take it upon him/herself to even on a token basis, make him/herself such a fool as to question the BHO II/Jr. constitutional qualification.
jasmine,
Remember that each case the Supremes consider are not tied to any other cases.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Even if he re-submit’s it to another justice all that justice will do is either deny it or distribute it for conference so it can be denyed by all the justices.
The Surpreme Court will do nothing.
They have already made that clear when they denied Loe Donofrio’s Cort’s cases wrotnowski, and others.
I can’t belive we are 11 days untill the inuagaration and nothing has happened.
I am truly starting to belive that this issue is hopeless.
TO James D. Schneller: JUSTICE ALITO needs a case.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<