Schneller v. Cortes: Sen. Specter Improperly Nominated as Elector

Posted on 4/30/2009 by Phil

James Schneller, Plaintiff pro se in Schneller v. Cortes, released the following statement regarding Pennsylvania’s Senator Arlen Specter being appointed as an Elector in the Electoral College:

SCOTUS OBAMA CASE NOTES SPECTER’S IMPROPER NOMINATION AS PENNSYLVANIA ELECTOR IN NOVEMBER 2008 ELECTION

Wednesday, April 29,  11:20 PM (EST)
Contact: Jim Schneller  |  610-688-9471 |  [email protected]

WASHINGTON, DC –   Pennsylvanian James D. Schneller raises in his petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, filed on April 6, 2009, regarding failure of eligibility of Barack Obama for office, the fact that Senator Arlen Specter was appointed as a Pennsylvania elector for the 2008 presidential election.

Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution directs that “no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. “

Was the Senator so certain of a McCain loss that he felt above the law ?  What other purpose might this illegal appointment serve ?   This appointment is, at the least, further proof that much of Congress takes Presidential elections lightly and may have abandoned basic rights and principles that Americans hold sacred !

Press Release: petition for writ of certiorari filed :  http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5737

Supreme Court docket for petition: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-9797.htm

A cursory search at the National Archives will produce the following:

You will notice that a certain “Arlen Specter” is listed as a Presidential Elector for John McCain and Sarah Palin, second row, fourth from the bottom.

Clearly, we do not have proper enforcement mechanisms regarding America’s electoral process in place at all. No wonder so many people are ignorant about eligibility issues; States aren’t even properly enforcing their own Electoral College process!

Then again, what does this say about the morals and ethics of folks like Sen. Arlen Specter? I suppose it is appropos to suggest that he truly wishes to make himself known by any means necessary.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: The following is a copy of Mr. Schneller’s petition. The references to Sen. Arlen Specter are in a footnote:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. _______________

In 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, respondents

APPLICATION 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

James D. Schneller              pro se
[address redacted]
[ [email protected] ]

To the Honorable Justice Who Is Allotted The Third Circuit:

I. Jurisdiction

     Applicant requests jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1651 because this reuest is abundantly worthy of the discretion of the Court otherwise sparingly exercised.

This action is based on a foundational claim of violation of the Constitution, and violation of a noticeably specific and unarguable requirement of the Constitution, and so the Court has statutory jurisdiction.
The Court by hearing this application and issuing the requested relief will metabolize and  enforce their jurisdiction, as is required under the All Writs Act.

Petitioner appeals directly to His or Her Honor because of the urgency created by the statutory date of the Joint Session of Congress for counting of the electoral vote.   The urgency exists in part because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not acted on an application for emergency relief filed by applicant, yet the joint session of Congress is set to occur on January 8, 2008 and petitioner has need to bring an urgent matter, bearing on said Joint Session, as part of this application.

Jurisdiction is further available because the criteria governing petitions for writ of certiorari are substantially present in this case or are likely of imminent occurrence.   The state court of last resort has or is likely to decide   [1] on an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals, and with an express, unadulteratable, clause of the Constitution.  Also, the State court has or is likely to decide an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, and has decided an important federal question in a way that may conflict with relevant decisions of this Court.  This is also true in the reverse, under the circumstances, should applicant prevail.

Likewise, there is a correlation of the  U.S.S.C. Rule 11′s directive that “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.  This is an accurate description of the within request and reasons.

Applicant further claims jurisdiction because a United States Court case from the same State is presently scheduled for conference on January 9, 2008.   Berg v. Obama, No. 08-570.   Applicant raises all pertinent arguments and claims in Berg and in the two other cases in this subject matter,  Donofrio v. Wells, No. 08A407, and Wrotnowski v.Bysiewicz, No. 08A469 and incorporates those arguments or begs leave to do so.

II. Relief Requested

Applicant James D. Schneller, representing himself, requests this Honorable Court, to issue  an emergency stay and injunction prohibiting the Joint Session of Congress that is scheduled for January 8, 2008, from including, in the count, the electoral votes tallied at the Pennsylvania Electoral College, and prohibiting said Joint Session from including in the count, the electoral votes of any State whose electors failed to comply with the law including by failing to make written oaths of performance of their office, and prohibiting said Joint Session from including in the count the electoral votes of any State whose chief election officer has certified , approved, or otherwise formally allowed the placement of Barack Obama on the ballot, and whose statutes require an eligibility and/or qualification of candidates for national office prior to placement on the ballot.  The Court is requested to directly order production of documentation showing natural born status of Mr. Obama if such be deemed appropriate.

III.  Facts

Applicant filed, on December 5, 2008 and December 8, 2008, a petition for writ of mandamus and an application for injunction,  concerning certification of electors, ascertainment of the vote, and transmittal of the certified tally to the Secretary of the United States Senate and other parties designated by law, and seeking a a directive or injunction to Mr. Obama to submit appropriate proofs, by mandamus to the Secretary and/or direct injunction, and a stay of all activity affecting or implementing finalization of the election held on November 4, 2008 .  Said action is filed against Pedro A. Cortés, who is the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth, and his ward, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation (“the Secretary”), and Senator Barack Obama (“Mr. Obama”).  The pleadings raise the fact that mandatory transmittal was not necessary until the week of December 29th, allowing at least fifteen (15) days, and for said proofs to be submitted, without interfering with said Joint Session.  3 U.S.C.§13

Applicant claims in said case that qualification and eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II  Section 1 clause 5 regarding the special requirement for presidents to be natural born citizens, is prohibitive to any further action under said Section, 3 U.S.C. Chapter 1, and 25 P.S. Chapter 14 et al., pending a directive to Mr. Obama to submit proofs, at risk of losing certification .

The objection to a failure of natural born citizen status on the part of Mr. Obama has become a claim known to all United States citizens.  The claim remains unopposed in the face of demands for proofs, that are believed to be decisive and readily available, other than an apparently false or substantially altered image of a proof of birth of Mr. Obama.

Applicant claims that the Secretary certified candidates including Senator Barack Obama, to each Pennsylvania County, without fully investigating the qualifications of said candidates to hold office, and have not reevaluated said certifications despite knowledge that became available to them of the express possibility of falsity debilitatingly put forth in Mr. Obama’s candidates’ filings with the Secretary .

Applicant in said case requests a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés and the Bureau of Commissions Elections and Legislation, to immediately comply with the statutory directive to them in Chapter 14, including the directive in  25 Pa.C.S § 2621,  to determine the sufficiency of Senator Barack Obama’s nomination petitions, certificates and papers, and, with a demand for urgent response, including by way of the concurrently requested injunction, to direct Mr. Obama to produce proofs of his qualifying as a natural born citizen.

Applicant’s third initial filing was an application for extraordinary jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §726,  citing authorities for the prevalent Pennsylvania law that the term contests does not include actions regarding the Bureau or the Secretary, nor actions involving qualification of candidates, such actions being appropriate in proper cases for submission directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, rather than the common pleas or intermediate Courts.

IV. Reasons For The Requested Extraordinary Relief

    James D. Schneller now applies to this Highest Court , for an emergency stay and injunction to the Secretary of the Senate (“Vice President”), who is the party designated by law to present the fifty-one (51) certified tallys of the votes of the electors at the joint Session of Congress to be held on January 8, 2008, and to the Congress, with a request for directive to Mr. Obama to bring forth any documentation that will prove that he is a natural born citizen.
The injunction, or in the alternative, writ of mandamus, is requested to prohibit the respondents from counting the Pennsylvania electoral votes, because said certified vote of the Pennsylvania electors was erroneously transmitted to the Vice President in conflict with the stay under applicant’s petition for mandamus and/or application for injunction, that is afforded under Pa.R.A.P. 1701.   Moreso, the same circumstances exist in many, or all, states, including other issues as outlined in the last section of this application, and this supports jurisdiction and the request for injunction.

 An emegency stay is required because of the utmost importance of this matter to the public at large, and to national security.  Alarming circumstances already evolving would cause irreparable damage to petitioner and to his co-citizens, including a Constitutional crisis, a breach of the public trust, and, inter alia, the inaugurating of a President who is unqualified to serve, and who might in the following months succumb to the challenge that ought to be resolved prior to the final submission of the certified  tallies to the joint session.  There are grave implications and obvious chilling effects of the acts of respondents.  Their overt intent to subvert law without regard to principle nor example is contrary to the principles of this State and of the nation.

Respondents in the appliant’s action, and their fifty (50) other counterparts, have a legal duty to perform the basic screening of candidates for public office.  This function is in fact the core of the creation of their offices.   Senator Barack Obama not only has a duty to conform with official directives to produce proofs including his birth certificate, but he has a duty to retract his affidavit and his affidavits in any state, in which he falsely swore.  The nominated electors, have insufficient time to investigate these matters, and come to the College having relied on the 51 Bureaus of elections to see to the fulfillment of qualification and eligibility and all such  requirements.  The fact that their vote is tied to the popular vote causes a doubling of this reliance.

Senator Barack Obama’s refusal to comply thus far with the law, including as now asserted  in this Court, causes to applicant great stress and anguish that a person attempting to hold the ultimate reins of power, brazenly scoffs at the foundational document, and the morals and principals, that Americans and their future generations ought to see exemplified, not disobeyed.   The same candidate has and appears ready to continue to cause to applicant important loss of rights and further great stress and anguish.

V. Standing And Irreparable Harm

Applicant, as is the case in his state action, has standing to file this application. Applicant’s standing has not been challenged in the Pennsylvania action.  Applicant has and now again claims irreversible and voluminous aggrievement to himself and his person, as would occur to classes of citizens, that will further result, if the writ and the injunction are denied by the Court. [2]

In failing to lawfully and truthfully sign or swear to qualifications and in cooperating and conspiring to foment the swearing of other officials to falsely swear and/or certify, including the Democratic National Committee,  the state respondents cause a deprival of the right of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of reputation, of the vote and of equality of voting, and of pursuing their own happiness.  They also in their actions cause lack of due process and remedy, and lack of equal protection under the United States constitution.   Pa. Const. Art.I, U.S.Const. Amend XIV.

Now the Congress and it’s leadership, should they not take action in this regard, will cause the same deprivals of rights as those described in this application.  The requested injunction would stop this activity and maintain the status quo, pending determination on some or all of the specific issues in need of a resolution under the laws written in regard to such issues.

Applicant has been affronted and intruded upon by Mr. Barack Obama and is aggrieved and injured by his acts, and therefore is aggrieved by the acts of the other state respondents which cause these circumstances and which condone their furthering and increasing up to present.   U.S.Const. Amend I.  The requested injunction will stop this activity and maintain the status quo, pending determination on mandamus or on some or all of the specific issues therein.
Applicant and other citizens have experienced being told that their philosophies and morals  were antithetical to the vision of Senator Barack Obama and were not to be spoken of.  If the Court does not issue the requested injunction, applicant and other citizens will experience this continued infringement on their rights, including under  Pa. Const. Art. I s 7 , and U.S. Const. Amend. I.

Applicant is a religious citizen.  The campaign of Mr. Barack Obama, which has been permitted to continue by the acts of respondents, has openly caused to  applicant and to classes including religious Americans, a deep anguish and insult, along with real fear that an effort currently underway to undercut America’s religious growth and schools  and replace them with a worldview that is secular and immoral at its core, was destined to gain a leader of heretofore unmatched proportions, all of this in continuing derogation of rights afforded under Article 1 Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and U.S. Const. Amend. I.  The requested injunction will stop this activity and maintain the status quo, pending determination on mandamus or injunction designed to resolve some or all of the specific issues herein.

Applicant is a patriotic citizen.   Mr. Obama’s campaign and acts since the election cause to applicant and to all members of the class of patriotic, safety-minded citizens, severe stress regarding the protection of our borders and skies from impending attack.  The requested injunction will stop this activity and maintain the status quo, pending determination on mandamus or on some or all of the specific issues therein.

Mr. Obama’s campaign causes to applicant and to all members of the class of pro-life citizens, severe stress and emotional anguish, and loss of rights including in regard to mainstream movements such as those advancing the simple, irrefutable, doctrines of abstinence, loving childbearing, strong marriage, and alternatives to the living will, yet the state respondents’ furthering of the campaign and Mr. Obama’s acts subsequent to the election, are a textbook introduction to enormous setbacks to this realism, all of this overtly in conflict with statutes including Pa.Const. Art.I s 3 and U.S. Const. Amend. I.  The requested injunction will stop this activity and maintain the status quo, pending determination on mandamus or on some or all of the specific issues therein.

The current revelations that Mr. Obama ran said campaign and caused the dozens of unpatriotic and immoral slights to the values and ideals of applicant, including as slanderous and libellous to said classes or sub classes and to applicant, on the national and world stage, while Mr. Obama was not possessing the credentials fulfilling of the Constitutional requirements, causes great aggrievement and mental anguish to applicant and said sub classes.  This was apparent to the respondents but they did not attempt to evaluate or reevaluate Senator Barack Obama’s qualifications.  Pa.Const. Art.I s 7 , U.S. Const. Amend. I

The requested injunction will stop this activity and heighten the prior status quo, pending determination on mandamus or on some or all of the specific issues therein.  Moreso a realistic adjudication as to all violations of statutes and regulations, allegations such as voter fraud and overseas campaign contributions, and the ultimate basic eligibility of the candidate, and fraud clearly intended if such cannot be proven, can be made.  If the status quo is not maintained, the candidate stands to become ensconsed in the highest office, which will prejudice applicants’ case and the cases of all litigants who pursue claims similar to these in other Courts.

The state respondents’ failure to evaluate or reevaluate said qualifications, subsequent to Mr. Obama’s refusal to offer real proof of citizenship, is compounding of applicant’s awareness of his loss of his right to a fair and open election, and his right to defend life, liberty, and property, and equal protection, by way of a fair and open election, all of these infringed upon by Senator Barack Obama’s failure to conform to basic law of confirmation of qualification in circumstances of a national election and American values of candor and legality always presumed, especially at election time.  The requested injunction will stop this activity and maintain the status quo, and stands to assist determination on some or all of the specific issues therein.
Applicant claims full and  voluminous aggrievement to himself and his person that will further result, if the writ and the injunction are denied by the Court.  All of the said values and rights already infringed upon will not become a moot question, but rather will stand as an open wound to applicant and to the nation and to the certain classes that are more likely to be exposed to same.
By the continuing failure and refusal to investigate qualification,  the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions and acts will, because any presence of Mr. Obama in the highest office, be openly mocked, in what would be a public display of disregard for the law, and in what is a denial of due process to any and all citizens by way of denial of adjudication of distinct requirements for running for office, holding office, and requirements to report changes or newly discovered facts even if they threaten to cause loss of office, and challenges thereto by applicant and by other Pennsylvania citizens.

The above aggrievements will continue in abundance to applicant and to the stated classes and sub classes, all with a continuing knowledge that the Chief of State is illegally in office, at the same time that his beliefs and positions as stated above, which are not political beliefs, but starkly moral and religious beliefs, are imprinted on his Administration and carried out to the deprivation of rights of millions of citizens, including the unborn, the religious, the chaste, the married, the child-rearing, the elderly and infirm elderly, and all children.

It is feared that respondents and Mr. Obama currently rely on momentum and a vague wish to avoid public disappointment, yet this is feasibly the very strategy upon which Mr. Obama feasibly relied if he decided upon the claimed fraud upon the voters.  Fear of disappointing voter blocks therefore is invalid and is cause to issue the injunction and bolster public trust and resolve in the Constitution.  The requested injunction will afford equity and fairness, including where compensation  for improper tactics such as the above are apparent.

Applicant, as do many responsible citizens, fear that the oath of office :  ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Will, by the nature of the affiant’s acts now raised,  be scoffed, smirked at, and spun out of existence, before the eyes of the nation.

Unless Mr. Obama proves his eligibility for candidacy, any state that transmits their certified results of the session of the electoral college will expressly contribute to illegality and fraud in the election process and in all likelihood will rely on said fraud and on misstatements made under oath.
Applicant has no belief in claims that a removal or withdrawal of Senator Barack Obama from his current status as president-elect would cause any disturbance or wrongful acts by the citizenry.   Americans are proud of their democracy and will be proud that the Constitution worked.  Senator Barack Obama and all leaders would be quick to denounce any such activity in advance.  America’s racial barriers are at their lowest yet, and there would be no-one to point hostility towards, the matter arising as it does from the first and strongest statute.

Further, circumventing the Constitution is not an intended solution where unhappiness of some portion of the population with a governmental decision is pronounced.  The opposite is true, where the government and the States must uphold their constitutions by and for the People.
This action may be the only legal remedy available for Pennsylvania voters and the stated classes, and may be the only remedy available for all voters and members of the stated classes.

The intent of the requested relief is to resolve the controversy to the ends of justice and legality rather than continue a subterfuge into the new administration.  No harm will be caused to respondents by the stay and injunction.   Any investigation is likely to be expeditious and not complex.   Senator Barack Obama’s producing of a birth certificate is readily accomplished.

VI.  Likelihood of succeeding on the merits

Whether decided for or against applicant, the State case is extremely likely of further appeal, on a shorter timetable, to this Court.   Therefore a statement of likelihood of success is relevant and in part, further supportive of injunction.

The Secretary and Mr. Obama have claimed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that applicant’s case suffers from laches, mootness, lack of jurisdiction, inappropriateness of mandamus.  Each of these and the totality if held applicable in part are iunsufficient as a matter of well percolated law.
Applicant has acted in time, and claims that the Congress of the United States has shown,  in their enabling of § 5 of Title 3 U.S.C. entitled Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, only a small window where a state determination may be conclusive.  After all, as is the case here, applicant could not file in one sense until the vote was certified and the actual certifications were issued to the assumed winner’s party’s electors.  Applicant filed within plus or minus a few days, of this event.  Applicant has attested in part to the time frame of his personal awareness of the circumstances and his diligence in following up at that time.  Like their staff members responding to applicant’s phone calls, the state website page specifically pertaining to the certification of the vote, labelled the election results as unofficial, right up to the time of applicant’s decision to file.

§ 5 of Title 3 U.S.C. cannot be invoked by it’s letter, because it governs only where the State has enacted law establishing procedure for controversies regarding the electoral college, and Pennsylvania has no such statute.    Pennsylvania Court decisions consistently determine the statute feasibly standing as such, to be concerned solely with contests in the strictest sense.  Because Pennsylvania has no statute in this regard, this matter was not bound by Pennsylvania’s fairly rigid time frame for filing a contest.3   Moreso, applicant claims that § 5 does not prevent any controversies from being resolved after the six (6) day mark, rather they, as is the case herein, may or may not be conclusive, as the case may be.

It is claimed that  Title 3 U.S.C § 5 et seq does support an intent that the Court may order, in the requested injunction, postponement or extended recess of the meeting of the Joint Session pending an expeditious investigation into the matter of qualification for candidacy.

The lack of jurisdiction and mootness claims are unfounded because the state action is expressly appropriate for original jurisdiction, as stated in the section above entitled Facts, and the supposedly mooting transmittals of the electors certificates, are only a part of the claim, and in fact may have been implemented erroneously, as stated in full herein.

This application is more fully warranted if the state respondents have artificially transmitted the certified voting tallys in order to prevent this claim.

The Secretary has disclaimed any authority and/or duty to act on this question of qualification, yet the opposite is true.  The Governor’s ascertainment of the vote, which is prepared by the Secretary and holds the Governor’s seal, states twice a qualification of electors and candidates under all laws of the state and the United States.

The instructions-for-candidates pamphet provided by the Secretary states in the section entitled Candidates for President and Vice President that “In addition to filing nomination petitions or nomination papers, candidates for the office of President of the United States may be required to submit additional documentation.”   The statutes regarding eligibility for the electorate, soldiers, and the like are extensive, as is the case law- how can the Secretary apply an opposite standard to qualkifications of a candidate ?  Moreso, Pennsylvania’s election statutes, notably 25 P.S. Chapter 14 ARTICLE XVIII, entitled Penalties, establish an abundance of nearly forty (4) different violations, including § 3502. Perjury, § 3502.1. False affidavits of candidates, § 3503. Refusal to permit inspection of papers; destruction or removal; Secretary of the Commonwealth, § 3509. Refusal to administer oath; acting without being sworn, § 3513. False signatures and statements in nomination petitions and papers, § 3527. Interference with primaries and elections; frauds; conspiracy, § 3548. Failure to perform duty, § 3549. Hindering or delaying performance of duty, § 3550. Violation of any provision of act,  § 3551. Candidate violating act disqualified from holding office, and § 3552. Persons convicted of violating act to be disfranchised for four years.  There can be no doubt that the Secretary and the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation are reuired by the law to enforce Title 25 with particularity.  Current authorities concur that the Secretary must certify records of participants showing disregard for the law to law enforcement, In Re South Union Township Election, 61 Pa. D. & C. 490 (Pa. Com.Pl.1948 ) and as recently as 1998 a setting aside of a nominating petition due to false statements by the candidate resulted in adverse action. Petition of Pippy, 711 A.2d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).  In cases of these type the Courts consistently state that intent to deceive the public is the core element for their decision.   Where a respondent would claim that there is no requirement for a Presidential candidate to submit an affidavit, applicant claims numerous defenses including that the candidate had every right to file an affiidavit regardless; that the candisate had to half complete the affidavit and submit it, in any case, under the law; that Mr. Obama had to sign the half completed affidavit that he submitted,  with all nomination petitions for delegates to the convention, and additional reasons.

VII.  Lineage

    Applicant adopts with all respect and caution the logical claim of the applicant in Donofrio, that “a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, neither of which is an alien.  Having an alien parent would tie such person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws.  And such a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.”

Moreso, the possibility of other loyalties and laws being the reason for the clause, might not be intended to be an equitable formula, but certainly may be enabled when the subject of scrutiny has lived in other nations, with citizenship, for major segments of their life, and has not sought naturalization.   Equity would demand a thorough airing of the matter and to applicant’s belief the scale would tip overwhelmingly to the unqualified claim in that scope.

VIII. Additional Reasons For The Requested Relief

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 apparently 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 Pennsylvania nominee electors’ names were not on ballot and/or on the voting machine at which petitioner voted and applicant verified that these were present on the ballot and/or voting machine in some Pennsylvania districts.  Some machines did not have the independent candidates on the ballot.   To a claim that these were stated on the ballot, applicant claims that the names would have had to be such small print as to be fatal to any claim of sufficiency.

The Court did not make findings nor conclusions regarding Wrotnowski and Donofrio, and applicant believes with all respect and homage that the arguments put forth in those actions are overwhelming to the defense.

Applicant requests a writ of mandamus, in the requested injunction, to Mr. Obama, that any and all documents required to prove natural born citizenship be immediately delivered to applicant, to the state respondents, and/or to the Vice President, the Attorney General, and/or the Federal Election Commission, for the reasons expressed above.

Applicant during the unfolding sequence of events has requested Congressional Leaders and the Vice President for their attention and action regarding these matters, including short descriptions of the state case, in written communications.

The circumstances of this case support in the entirety, a decision by your Honor prior to filing of answers by any respondent.  Applicant attempts at this time to attain a stipulation of no answer from respondents.

WHEREFORE, applicant respectfully requests an injunction be issued prohibiting the Secretary of the Senate, and the Joint Session of Congress that is scheduled for January 8, 2008, from including in their count the electoral votes, the votes of the Pennsylvania Electoral College, and prohibiting said Joint Session from including in the count, the electoral votes of any State whose electors failed to comply with the law including by failing to make written oaths of performance of their office, and prohibiting said Joint Session from including in the count the electoral votes of any State whose statutes require an eligibility and/or qualification of candidates for national office prior to placement, and whose chief election officer has certified, approved, or otherwise formally allowed the placement of Mr.Barack Obama on the ballot, and/or certified the nomination of Mr. Barack Obama, or the November 4, 2008 vote, with knowledge of the probable lack of eligibility of Mr. Barack Obama.

WHEREFORE, applicant respectfully requests the Court that an injunction be issued upon  Barack Obama to produce proofs of his qualifying as a natural born citizen,  to applicant, the Secretary of the Senate, the Attorney General, the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth, and/or such parties as the Court deems appropriate.

WHEREFORE, applicant respectfully requests due to the clear right to relief, that any requirement for security prior to issuance of an injunction be waived by the Court, and requests in the alternative that applicant be required to post a security in a nominal amount of $1.00 or legal tender in the amount of $ 1.00, or such similar amount that the Court deems satisfactory, just, and proper.

_____________/s/__________________           December 31, 2008
James D. Schneller          pro se
500 East Lancaster Avenue  # 111d
Radnor, PA 19087

1  Applicant’s petition and application in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stand likely, but not certainly, to be decided, prior to the Joint Session of Congress which applicant asserts as causative of the urgency of this case.   Applicant in the case, Pa.S.C. No. 199 MM 2008, has vigorously sought his right to file a reply brief in response to the answer briefs filed by the Secretary and Mr. Obama on December 22, 2008, but has not been informed of a decision.

2 Peitioner had he included the appointed Pennsylvania electors as parties would have been stigmatized,  and believed this in any case to be debilitationg to a pro se claim, for reasons including the fact that the territory is unchartered.

3 Senator Arlen Specter was nominated as an elector for the Republican party despite his present day service as United States Senator.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. _______________

            In Re:  James D. Schneller, applicant

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, respondents

AFFIRMATION

         I, James D. Schneller, solemnly affirm and attest that the statements made in this application for extraordinary stay are true and correct.  I understand that false statements herein are made subject to penalty of perjury.

_____________/s/____________                 Date:  December 31, 2008
James D. Schneller

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. _______________

            In Re:  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

PROOF OF SERVICE

       I, James D. Schneller, petitioner, certify that I served this day a true and correct copy of  the within application for emergency stay and injunction, upon the following, by United States Postal Service Mail, and by fax or email:

President of the Senate United States Vice President
Richard B. Cheney
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

United States Senate
President Pro Tempore
Robert C. Byrd
311 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
434 Main Capitol Building
P.O. Box 624
Harrisburg, PA  17108

United States Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

United States House of Representatives
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

United States House of Representatives
John Boehner, Republican Leader
1011 Longworth Building
Washington, DC   20515

John P. Lavelle, Jr.            for Barack Obama Esquire
Attorney I.D. PA 54279
Morga, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921

Louis Lawrence Boyle, Esquire       for Secretary of Commonwealth Pedro Cortes, & Bureau of Commissions, Election, and Legislation
Pennsylvania Department of State
302 N. Office Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120

All Pennsylvania appointed electors

Nominated electors of the Pennsylvania Republican Party

Nominated Pennsylvania electors of Independent Parties

                                                                                                   _______________________________________                             December 31, 2008

_____________/s/____________                 Date:  December 31, 2008
James D. Schneller

-Phil