Schneller v. Cortes: Distributed for SCOTUS Conference
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 and that Sen. Arlen Specter had been improperly placed as an Elector for the McCain/Palin ticket. His application for stay had originally been denied by Associate Justice Souter back on January 8, 2009 (docket).
According to the case’s current docket (also referenced via my “Supreme Court Info” widget on the sidebar, to the right (scroll down)), on June 3, the case was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2009,” whereby the Supreme Court Justices will consider whether or not to grant the case cert.
What does this mean? Here’s a brief overview of a Writ of Certiorari (via Wikipedia):
Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the “rule of four.” The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool.
The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court’s action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.
There is further historical information available concerning what happens during a Supreme Court Conference. Be aware that there is no way for anyone, including SCOTUS Clerks, to know what transpired during a Conference; in the past, certain individuals have tried to spread rumors saying they knew so-and-so who clerked for such-and-such a Justice and they said blah. The truth of the matter is, that really is all they know — blah!
How do we know what the Conference’s decision is? This will be revealed via the 2008 Term Court Orders page. Based on past history, the Order to grant or deny Cert could occur at any time, but could be as late as Friday, 6/19 or potentially Monday, 6/22. Further, grantings and denials have occurred on any given day, so there’s really no absolute pattern for when Orders occur.
Update: Mr. Schneller had the following to say regarding his case:
Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue. I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point. Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor. This is not a request for donation.
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable newer evidence in the Obama birth issue. The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008. That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ? To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter) The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen. I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office. I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional. (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:
- Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
- recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
- recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
- national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s birthplace being there !
- the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
- the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
- the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
- I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine. Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence ! Just last week outrageous news happened :
Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals. This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jun/obama-fires-ig-who-exposed-supporter-s-fraud
Help Make Prosecution Happen
Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government. I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Note: I’ll be going on vacation beginning this Friday through to the end of next week; I will , however, have dial-up access and will be monitoring my site from time to time. I’ll be posting a “best-of” posting by Friday of this week as a reminder of this fact.
Similar Posts:
- Today’s SCOTUS Conference, WTPF.org National Press Club Update
- Berg v. Obama: A Second Conference Scheduled
- Schneller v. Cortes: Motion Denied, Writ Dismissed – with Opinion
- Lightfoot v. Bowen: Application for Stay Denied; Other Case Info; Dr. Taitz to File for Writ
- Donofrio v. Wells: Leo Further Explains SCOTUS’ Unique Action
C.N. Natus says:
I quoted from the SCOTUS case you (incorrectly) named, and the quote has the term “natural-born citizen” in it. What’s the point of writing what anyone can immediately see to be false?
HistorianDude,
Your email’s a bit different — have you really returned, so soon?
It simply must be my bodaciously kewl web site!
-Phil
DC,
You should read my newer posting (to this one) concerning exactly what “in forma pauperis” actually means. Not only this, you should also familiarize yourself with the fact — according to Wikipedia — that at least half the cases submitted to the Supreme Court are in this form.
Frankly, I could not care less whether or not the Clerk’s Office was not amused (as if this has absolutely anything to do with the efficacy of any case, nor the idea that a Justice is going to completely and solely rely upon their Clerks for an ultimate opinion on a given case filed in this fashion) and there is no evidence to suggest that the Clerk’s Office even had an opinion (as if they’re legally allowed to do so).
And as far as your accusation of “abusing SCOTUS process,” I’m not really sure about which you’re speaking. After all, as is readily apparent, the concept of petitions being submitted “in forma pauperis” is hardly rare.
-Phil
Anonymous,
What is irrational about asking for the President’s background documentation to establish his eligibility?
-Phil
From the SCOTUS Orders page…
08-9797 SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari
are dismissed.
See Rule 39.8.
As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.
See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Justice Stevens dissents.
See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
Has anyone heard the results of the Schneller case conference? Isn’t it awfully strange that nothing came out yet? They usually announce 1 or 2 days later not 5
Phil
DC may be one of bs’s acorns and I could understand why “it” would be clicking and checking up on your site and others. But, to take the time to respond???? Maybe DC isn’t even an American or has never read and if so understood the Constitution. But responding??
Well… there was a major breakthrough for the Birther’s in this case. It was not “denied without comment.”
It was instead denied with comment:
Phil:
The high court not only denied a writ, but was a bit displeased with the plaintiff and his counsel:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/062209zor.pdf
I do not know about you, but, as a layman, I am very frustrated by these lawyers who are not properly litigating a valid issue. I think the best one is 82 year old John Hemenway (Hollister v. Soetoro).
Well, it figures!
We the people must seek recourse.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/062209zor.pdf
Courage and Godspeed
Here is the link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/062209zor.pdf
Reality Check #2:
According to the SCOTUS Orders:
SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari
are dismissed.
Special treat: The SCOTUS clerks were not amused.
They even spanked the plaintiffs for repeatedly abusing SCOTUS process! So much for this case.
Done. Move on.
08-9797 SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
The Supreme Court rules:
08-9797
SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
Phil: “2. You left out the key point of the overall point via the ellipsis in your quoted paragraph”
That may be your key point. Mine was the one I made at the top of my post —
The passage that I quoted shows clearly that both of those claims are false.
08-9797 SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES, SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
PERSONAL Standing’ AS THEY HAVE COURT CASES BEFORE SCOTUS, @ Apuzzo, Berg, Leo, Taitz, and all Noble challengers + Sue to Block Sotomayor
1) Bo Is illegal Alien, not even POTUS, Illegal-STACKING SCOTUS 2) N HAVEN CASE; Justice: TO HER IS DISGRACE! 3) DESKOVIC CASE SHE’s a IDIOT, NOT EMPATHY! 4)she’s a Justice Whore, Picked to intimindate 8 Justices, TO not Prosecute BO!
Utimate Criminal: Obama brags with William Ayers that he
Is GUILTY AS HELL , AND YOU ALLOW HIM TO INSTAL OBSTRUCTION- OF JUSTICE-LAP DOGS- HOLDER AND HE Is NOT EVEN LEGAl CITIZEN AND ARE
WE
NOT GOIN TO FIGHT LIKE HELL!!
Barry O: WILD MAN JOKER-CRIMINAL MAKEs CORUPTION JUST FOR HIS MENTAL ORGY, and we are not protesting like real men in the streets like in IranB ?
I spoke a Hawaii DOH official six weeks ago. As indicated on their website it is their standard practice to issue a computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB). The reason given was that it is easier and less time consuming. She stated that a person who required a certified copy of their long form Certificate of Birth needed to make that request in writing and provide an explanation as to why it was needed. The request would then have to be approved by the registrar. Chairman Soetoro or any other person with a legitimate reason for making the request would have no trouble obtaining a copy of their long form BC.
Thanks, Ken
Phil says:
But Phil, you guys made headlines, with Fox News suggesting people spend half an hour looking at the blogs, to see how preposterous and far out you guys are, and the level of crazy out there (where “there” means here).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI
They also pointed out that part of the problem is how you guys feed each other your anger and myths, and maybe a rational response here can mitigate that.
MaineSkeptic,
While I appreciate the update, two things in response:
1. I think it’s a presumption on your part to suggest that they are “getting phone calls on this subject” that lead them to change the page; it could quite easily have been the fact that they did an internal review and that audit showed that the requirements on this web page didn’t match the publicly-stated change in policy RE: public records administration. Besides — who knows how official their web page is anyway;
2. You left out the key point of the overall point via the ellipsis in your quoted paragraph; here is the “missing” text:
-Phil
This case is going to be heard by SCOTUS folks! Has to be after reading this over twice. There is wrongdoing here. The biggest wrongdoer in this case is unfortunately Justice Souter. His resignation has to be because of his errors in judgment regarding this and other cases. Has to be.
Hey, Phil, update from Hawaii –
Remember the claim that Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of Hawaiian birth? And the related claim that Obama can get his “long form” for some nominal fee?
Well, apparently the Hawaiian bureaucracy has grown tired of getting phone calls on this subject and has updated their web page. It now says:
Find it at hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl.
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, )
)
Defendants. )
Strunk’s reply is at
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/christopher-strunk-obama-lawsuit-quo-warranto-demand-for-jury-trial-affidavit-in-support-of-plaintiff%E2%80%99s-notice-of-cross-motion-may-25-2009-52709-final-memorandum-of-law-memorial-day/
in the comments.
DC,
What’s even more fascinating to me is when folks who claim the kinds of things you do take the time and energy to click on my site’s domain name in their browser’s address bar, pull up a posting, and go about making a comment on things that they claim are so “delusional from the start.”
It makes me wonder, who’s more “delusional” — the people pushing forward on the eligibility issue or those who follow after these same people?
Either way, thanks for visiting (as you have for quite some time), and I really appreciate your input that has become a part of the “delusion!”
-Phil
KJ,
Thanks for that. I’ll still be checking in from time to time on things with the site.
And yes, the flow of info will continue shortly thereafter.
-Phil
Reality Check Please:
This case will be ‘denied without comment’ after the Justices meet and consider a few real caes and then issue dozens of denials for the reat. If you honestly think they are actually going to discuss the merits of this particular case you are delusional. The Birther-cultists were saying the samething back in December when two of the cases crashed and burned without a ripple. Then agian this whole thing is delusional from the start. That is why is fun to watch.
earl,
I intend to, and thank you.
Of course, I won’t be venturing far from the site
-Phil
Phil,
Hope that you have a nice vacation. May you have a vacation that allows you to take a break from all of your usual duties including those here, and come back renewed to start again.
We will miss your articles and patience with the commenting. Thank you for everything that you have done.
KJ
Have a nice vacation Phil. Same to Mrs Phil and Phil-lettes. Don’t forget your sunscreen, apply liberally! ( nyuck, nyuck)
levotb,
Yes, it’s a formality. In fact, if you notice the last entry in the document, it shows that the SCOTUS Clerk received the petition for cert.
-Phil
realist,
Actually, according to the previous docket, Justice Souter did dismiss the application for stay:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a592.htm
-Phil
brygenon,
While you referenced the wrong docket number, the point is still nevertheless made.
-Phil
Phil, have a wonderful vacation; just a very special request to end all the fringe hate postings forever: could you please put a promiant section on your site, where both Left and Right parties can post prayers for our nation? We all Appreciate the Pass,
As I mentioned, I’ll have a “best-of” posting that will go up by Friday morning; I figure that’ll be good for a bunch of commentary that’ll likely occur, especially what with the current Supreme Court case to be heard.
-Phil
Phil,
I received the following from a gal named Jani. It’s from today in the PA Supreme Court. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus. It is “CLOSED”. I assume this is a formality/usual procedure when a case is appealed to the higher court (SCOTUS)?
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/SupremeCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=199 MM 2008
You need to make a correction in your article. There was no denial by Justice Souter on January 8. The decision of the lower court was handed down on January 8.
No. 08-9797
Title:
James D. Schneller, Petitioner
v.
Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al.
Docketed: April 16, 2009
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (199 MM 2008)
Decision Date: January 8, 2009
Phil, I think you are incorrect in, “His application for Writ of Certiorari had originally been denied by Associate Justice Souter back on January 8, 2009″. That was an application for a stay, not certiorari, which is why it went to an individual justice.
Schneller has previously filed four petition to SCOTUS for writ of certiorari on matters unrelated to this one, all denied. Earlier this year the court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis citing Rule 39.8, which reads: If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-6912.htm
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf
Do we speak too many words but not enough, in Faith to God?
Phil,
Have a nice vacation. Thanks much for your appreciated effort on this blog/site. We will have to see what happens with this SCOTUS conference. Travel Safe, hope to see you updating your site soon.
Pete