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

A concerned Pennsylvania citizen and the pro se Plaintiff in Schneller v. Cortes, James Schneller had originally brought a suit against his Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pedro Cortes, alleging that Pennsylvania’s certified ballots were improperly transmitted to the federal government due to a stay of such activity. He had originally been denied by Associate Justice Souter back on January 8, 2009 (docket).

In the posting to which I have linked, Mr. Schneller mentioned that he would likely be appealing to the Supreme Court (docket for the new case) after receiving any denial from the PA Supreme Court; to wit, the following release (h/t CountryFirst), about which a response is due from the Defendant by May 18, 2009:

PETITION TO SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES ASKS NEW LOOK AT OBAMA CITIZENSHIP, IN LIGHT OF FRAUD, UN-AMERICANISM, AND COLLABORATION BY CONGRESS THAT PREVENTED INVESTIGATION

Wednesday, April 22, 12:20 AM (EST) 
Contact: Jim Schneller schnlj@aol.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC – Pennsylvanian James D. Schneller has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking reversal of the denial by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Mr. Schneller’s petitions for writ of mandamus and for injunction, for an order the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes to demand proof from Barack Obama of his eligibility for office, in particular his standing as a natural born citizen under the United States Constitution. The second petition sought an injunction directly to Mr. Obama, and a stay of the certification of the vote, by Secretary Cortes, including any certification to Pennsylvania’s Governor, and postponing of the scheduled meeting of the electors, pending disposition of the request for writ of mandamus. 

Petitioner Schneller claims that since the candidate had not shown his eligibility under the Constitution, it follows that certification of the ballot was improper and fraudulent, that the canvas and certification of the vote was meaningless, that the Pennsylvania electors should not have had their votes certified, nor had their votes tallied in the traditional meeting before the Governor, nor should the certified electoral ballots have been lodged with the President of the U.S. Senate, nor the joint session of Congress. 

Schneller says: ” We have witnessed a treasonous coup by the Democratic Party and the Congress. The Supreme Court has had time to consider Mr. Obama’s acts and how his post election activities relate to his subterfuge. How long do we have to pretend that this man is our President ? What may have been novel, or overwhelming, in the realm of political equity, has disappeared, and the gentleman is to most voters an interloper and un-American. The Supreme Court has an urgent duty to stand with the Constitution and with the People ! ”

Unlike in prior Supreme Court cases entitled Berg, Donofrio, and Wrotnowski, Schneller claims abundant standing to sue, for reasons including his personal experiences in the campaign, and his standing as a member of subclasses of citizens deeply affected by the defendant’s improper candidacy, including the religious, and the pro-life. No prior case has resulted in an opinion.

Petitioner Schneller’s state suit raised the fact that Senator Obama had placed a doctored “certificate of live birth” on the internet, and had sworn falsely or in bad faith in his candidate affidavits in thirty or more states. Moreso, suits against ACORN had been filed in numerous states. Hollow and biased judgments in these, as well as the administration’s continual overtures to ACORN since the election, are a warning signal to all who object to open corruption and use of public funds as private favor.

The petition for writ of certiorari also claims that the Pennsylvania Department of State failed to prosecute numerous violations of the Commonwealth’s election law by Mr. Obama, and argues that the election law’s omission of a requirement for presidential candidates to file sworn affidavits is unfair, unequal, and unconstitutional. This omission was inexplicably amended into the statute in 2006.

“The entire country is aware of Obama’s subterfuge, yet no official has demanded proof of this gentleman’s eligibility under what is a most simple and basic requirement for the Presidency. A bare statement by the Hawaii Health Director that they have a valid birth certificate is fatally insufficient. Hawaiian officials have dug the ditch deeper, through various obstructive actions taken by them, and a boycott against Hawaii is in place.”

The petitioner says in regard to Congress: ” Even if Pennsylvania’s certified electoral vote had been delayed past the time of the Joint Session, this could have had the positive effect of fomenting a recess and a resolution, so that the eligibility issue could be properly addressed . Since the Pennsylvania vote arrived in time, I then filed in the Supreme Court for an injunction or writ of mandamus ordering Congress to not count the Pennsylvania vote until resolution of the Schneller v. Cortes case, and ordering Mr. Obama to produce proofs of citizenship. I faxed copies of this to every Senator and Member of Congress prior to the Joint Session, just as I had faxed a copy of the petitions for injunction and mandamus, to every Pennsylvania elector and official, prior to the meeting of the electoral college. What more did any of these leaders need to initiate investigation ? “

While it would be nice to see the Supremes take a look at this case, based on what I see in the above communication, I have to wonder how this case will fare any differently regarding eligibility.

Aside from standing, the biggest issue has to do with enforcement of eligibility. Can Mr. Schneller successfully show that SoC Cortes was liable via a certain State statute to verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond any political party’s affidavit of eligibility? If no laws enforcing Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution currently exist — nor existed at the time of the 2008 election — then what legal enforcement was not done?

Even though I strongly dislike this President and his party’s control over Congress, presidential or congressional idiocy is not unconstitutional, so that does not form a good basis for a case. It nevertheless forms a good basis for a severe ousting in 2010 and 2012.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits and common law grand jury updates can be found here.

-Phil

Similar Posts:

• Schneller v. Cortes: PA Supreme Court Case
• Schneller v. Cortes: Justice Souter Denies Emergency Stay Application
• Schneller v. Cortes: Motion Denied, Writ Dismissed – with Opinion
• Schneller v. Cortes: Three Letters Sent to PA Officials RE: Electors
• Schneller v. Cortes: Distributed for SCOTUS Conference