We are fortunate to have two respectable Internet posters: theobamafile.com (technically not a blog) believes that these cases haven’t been completely denied, while Jeff Schreiber at americasright.com believes that they’re “dead in the water”…

Update: Dr. Taitz recently posted some great commentary on the subject.

Update: CitizenWells is following the Electoral College process quite intimately, focusing especially on California.

theobamafile.com:

Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.

The Justices denied the “stay’ but have retained the “certori.”  It isn’t dead.  They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him.  Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College “elects” him.  Then Congress must approve the Election.  Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.

Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.

Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.  

Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance.  Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.

The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.

Jeff opines:

As far as I know–and I very much could be wrong–the applications for stay in both the Wrotnowski and Donofrio case essentially asked the Court two questions: First, whether the Court would consider the applications for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, and second, whether the Court would grant that petition for writ of certiorari and agree to hear the case at hand on its merits. In Bush v. Gore, for example, the same sort of process was taken, with an application for stay filed first and subsequently treated by the Court as a petition for certiorari in order for the case to be heard from there. That’s why most Election Law casebooks have two separate opinions — one for whether the stay should be considered a petition for certiorari, and another for the petition itself.

In the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases, those applications for stay–the ones asking the Court to consider them as petitions for writ of certiorari–were denied. Therefore, as far as I know, there is no petition for writ of certiorari to live on in perpetuity in either case. Thus, the Donofrio case, in its current form, is dead in the water. As is the Wrotnowski case.

Incidentally, I previously linked over to InvestigatingObama with their take on this: Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?

theobamafile goes on to say:

Only one senator AND only one representative — so start writing yours today! — Use this chart and associated info in your message.

No matter how you think all of this is going to go down, here are my thoughts on the process, going forward. Also, don’t forget that a current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here and I’ve aggregated a number of State-based electoral reform initiatives here.

-Phil

The full posting is below…

Update: InvestigatingObama further pursues this story by pointing out some folks who are trying to mislead the public on exactly how the application and Conference processes work at SCOTUS.

-Phil

THE WASHINGTON TIMES COVERAGE OF DONOFRIO AND WROTNOWSKI SCOTUS CASES
Posted in Uncategorized on December 10, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Tom Ramstack of The Washington Times has made consistent attempts to report accurately on the SCOTUS cases – Donofrio v. NJ Secretary of State and Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State.  Of all the main stream media coverage, Ramstack’s has been the most accurate.

But there are a couple of things I need to clarify about his last two reports from a purely legal standpoint.  The issues involved in these cases are not easy to report accurately.  Most of the reporters are not lawyers and if not a lawyer they are truly at a disadvantage and must really strive to lock down understanding of each key phrase as whole worlds of meaning change on even tiny discrepancies.

This today on Cort’s case:

On the same day the Supreme Court declined to hear one appeal challenging Barack Obama’s right to become president because of questions about his citizenship, Justice Antonin Scalia distributed another appeal on the same issue for the court to consider.

The new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, is scheduled to be discussed by the justices at their Dec. 12 private conference. They plan to decide whether to give the case a hearing – again on whether the British citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father makes the president-elect ineligible to assume the office…

Mr. Donofrio helped Mr. Wrotnowski prepare his Supreme Court appeal.

“Cort’s application before [the Supreme Court] incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it,” Mr. Donofrio said on his blog.

The report should have stressed that, according to Obama, his birth status as a British citizen was “governed” (Obama’s Fight The Smears’ choice of words) by Great Britain in that Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth, not just his father.

Ramstack also reports:

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”

That’s a rather absurd statement.  Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all.  If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it.  But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine.  Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court.  Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:

No. 07A638	Â
Title:	Ate Kays Company, Applicant v. Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:	Â
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District

Case Nos.:

(175 EM 2007)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008	Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008	Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia.     —————

 

No. 7A421   Michigan, Applicant v. Corey Ramone Frazier Docketed:   Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Michigan Case Nos.: (131041)     Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens. Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens. Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito. Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.	Â
Â	Â
Â	Â
Â	Â

Â

Â

Now let’s take a look at Ramstack’s December 9, 2008 report:

Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer who filed the case, argued that Mr. Obama had British citizenship when he was born, thus disqualifying him from being president under the Constitution’s requirement of being a “natural-born citizen.”

“My case is done,” he said. “I’m perfectly comfortable with their decision.”

Preventing Mr. Obama from becoming president was less of a consideration for him than ensuring constitutional law is followed, he said.

“I’m not worried about Barack Obama, I’m worried about the precedent of law,” Mr. Donofrio said. “This sets a precedent for someone who doesn’t have a tie to this country” to become president…

Fair coverage again.  But it appears as if I intended to imply that Obama had no tie to this country.  I didn’t mean that.  And to Mr. Ramstack’s credit, we did discuss this exact quote.  I told him people might mis-understand.  He was confident otherwise.  And I let it go because I felt like I might be bullying him in that I parsed over multiple statements in his original draft of the story when he called me to verify the statements before going to print.  I was deeply gratified that he took the time and effort to make sure the story was accurate.

But reading that statement in print has confirmed my fears.  It is confusing.

I meant to convey that a person – born to a father who is an alien and who remains an alien not residing here – would probably have a tie to whatever country his father is from.  For example, as to Obama, in 1963 his British citizenship transferred to Kenya, and while he may have dropped his dual national status at the age of 21, the influence of that country and his tie thereto are self evident.

I take personal responsibility for any confusion on this issue.  I should have been more vigilant.

This is why it’s so difficult for news reports to accurately convey legal issues.   Every word is so important.  I cannot stress that enough.

[Watch for blog post #2 today regarding an update on the Chester Arthur story.]

I barely know where to begin. OK. Big news for Tues 12-9-08 and Friday 12-1208. Leo Donfrio’s case was denied today, BUT Cort Wrotnowski’s case was distributed for conference by all nine SCOTUS Justices this coming Friday morning. Leo’s legal arguments were a large bases portion of Cort’s. Leo strengthened the arguments in Cort’s case, AND both Leo and Cort are heading to the SCOTUS Tues to file a supplemental brief further strengthening Cort’s case. They will answer questions from the media at the SCOTUS steps at 11:00AM.

This is far from over.  Leo is fired up.  Let the media know that Leo and Cort will be there at 11:00 AM Tues.     

And it gets even better – my eyes are still crossed. I attended the most amazing press conference anyone could imagine today.  The room was packed overflowing.  (It was probably the same room at the National Press Club used by Rev Wright ranting on after Obama didn’t want him too. I’ll try and find out…Poetic isn’t it?.)  Philip J. Berg, Esq., Bob Shultz, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, and the ever lovable, Pastor James Manning, just SPANKED a room full of press with four big professional vid cams running, etc. Wow. It was hard not to cheer, and Pastor Manning got an ovation even in there!

I got it on tape. 

You’ll never see this in MSM. We’ll have it produced and posted by Tues early afternoon PST.  It’s 90+ minutes. You can see the whole thing.

Also, the InvestigatingObama blog is giving a great play-by-play on this evening’s Plains Radio Network interview of Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski on their respective cases. Key quotes include: “Press is avoiding Wrotnowski, while it plays up the denial of Donofrio’s hearing”, and “Adam Liptak of the New York Times is inqiring, also Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.”

Update: Jeff Schreiber presents his overview here.

Update: InvestigatingObama has a video of the NPC event here.

-Phil

From today’s Orders:

08A407

DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE

The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and

referred to the Court is denied.

It is likely that the full Court has now agreed with Associate Justice Souter’s original denial of Leo’s emergency stay application.

If this therefore means the end of the road for this case at SCOTUS, it basically means the matter should be handled back at the State level (per the wikipedia entry for certiorari; see my thoughts here). Be aware that when the Supremes make such denials, it is not precedent-setting.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits is located here.

Leo’s response follows; it is true that, to date, nothing has happened with Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and Leo discusses about how Cort’s suit doesn’t have the same procedural flaws that his did.

Leo’s goal, incidentally, was accomplished:

The case and issues were considered.  Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal.  I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.   Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds.  Please remember that.  It’s important for history to record that.

This posting updated throughout the day.

-Phil

[UPDATE 12:23 PM  The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19.  They had the issue before them for for sixteen days.  Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument.  But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that.  The case and issues were considered.  Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal.  I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.   Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds.  Please remember that.  It's important for history to record that.]

DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

My application was denied.  The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State [my link] is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday.  I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was.  On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated  SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Dec. 22.  The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does.   It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine.  His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing.  Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case.  Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here.  SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure.  I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue.  I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending.  That’s all we can really say with any certainty.

At 10 a.m., the Court will release the remaining orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday. (Click here for the orders released Friday afternoon.)

I will be posting as soon as I hear substantiated word that a decision has been made.

-Phil

The full comment follows…

DONOFRIO NOT INVOLVED WITH NATIONAL PRESS CLUB EVENT ON DEC. 8, 2008
Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.

I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.

Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide.   The event has nothing to do with me.

World Net Daily has their story wrong.  I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event.

Jeff Schreiber shares his thoughts on the current status of the SCOTUS Conference, including an update from earlier this evening. You can see the two cases for which the Supremes have granted writs under “Supreme Court Info” on the top-right of my sidebar.

From theobamafile.com:

The Supreme Court should issue its full orders on Monday, 12/8/2008.  A Supreme Court watcher was reported as saying that he thinks it’s safe to say that it’s likely the court will hear the case.

I wouldn’t get too excited about that last statement.  There’s no shortage of opinions about these goings on and you know what they say about opinions. [emphasis theirs]

For the record, everything is officially quiet at this time with respect to Leo’s case. 

Leo’s posting follows…

DOCKET CONFUSION – WND LETTER CAMPAIGN – DEC. 5th RADIO INTERVIEWS
Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

DOCKET CONFUSION

I must admit that past comments of mine regarding the docket entries of Nov. 19, one for the Justice Thomas referral and one for the distribution for conference, might not signify any affirmative action.   I cannot get a straight answer from the Supreme Court despite many attempts.  Different press sources have also received various explanations as well.

I’ve examined other dockets for applications and I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the docket entries mean.   I have requested an explanation from the Clerk numerous times and guidance from the Public Information Office.  The PIO did try to help, moreso than the Clerk’s office, but I am more confused than ever.

Muddying the waters is the  Reporter’s Guide to Applications Pending Before the United States Supreme Court, specifically page 3.

I am removing from my blog, all references which indicate any knowledge of what the docket entries mean.  And let me go on the record to apologize if it turns out that my analysis of the docket was erroneous.   I did the best I could with the information I had.

I was told by the stay clerk on Nov. 6 that Justice Thomas would deny a renewed application.  But, if what the Reporter’s Guide says is true – that it’s current standard practice for the renewed application to be referred to the full court – then the stay clerk, whose job it is to handle applications, had no business telling me Justice Thomas would deny the renewed application.

And he didn’t deny it.  (Donofrio resists temptation to stick out his tongue and say, “Nah na nah na na”… barely.)

The communication and tactics taken by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office have been abysmal.   I have absolutely no respect for that office.

Regardless, I take full responsibility for the confusion and must go on record now as saying I have no idea what the docket entries mean, or if they mean anything at all.

I have not been given any information on the disposition of the application at the conference today.   SCOTUS did issue a miscellaneous order granting certiorari in two cases today.

The rest of their orders for today should come out on Monday.  If I had to read into this, I would say it doesn’t look good, but it’s just a guess.  The Public Information Office said they have no information other than what the Court published today.   The full order list will be out on Monday.

I wish I could give better guidance, but I can’t.

WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN

I also want people to know that I appreciate all the letters sent, but Inever supported a form letter.   I was adamant about that and I was hoping people would formulate their own thoughts and not sign a kind of petition.   People need to think and express themselves form their own personal heart and mind.

As I reported below, the letter didn’t address the issues of my case, and the solicitation for participation in the campaign did unfortunately mix up the birth certificate issue, something I’ve really tried to avoid.  I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that the only people with standing to certify that info are the various Secretaries of State.

But I do appreciate so much that people laid out money to support the Constitutional issues raised.   And I know it was important for folks to be heard before the conference today.  I just don’t like the concept of bulk e mails.  It’s not like the Justices will read them over and over.  Think about it.

I’m not into herding.  I’m into individual expression.  And I refuse to tell people what to say.  I’ve been consistent about that.

The World Net Daily letter campaign had nothing to do with me and I did not endorse it.  But I do appreciate the effort everybody made, including WND.   It’s just not my style and never will be.

Also, I will not be involved with any press conferences on Monday, Dec 8.  If you see my name associated with that anything like that, please know it is not with my permission.  If you don’t read about something involving me on this blog, assume my name is being used without my permission.

RADIO INTERVIEWS FOR DEC. 5, 2008.

At 7:30 PM EST, I will be on The Laurie Roth Show.

At 9:00 PM EST, I will be on The Lion’s Den, Plains Radio Network.

At 1:00 AM EST, I will be on Coast To Coast with George Noory.  Their web site hasn’t been updated yet, but I haven’t emailed the release form back yet, so give it an hour or so.

That’s the last radio I’m doing unless certiorari is granted.  I have refused all requests for TV interviews and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.  Radio is a much more powerful form of communication.

I originally reported this “truth-in-plain-sight” fact here (hat tip to theobamafile.com).

Leo’s commentary follows…

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION
Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

At Barack Obama’s web site,the following admission:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children

Read that last line again.

That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.  This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 nobinding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.

You may also want to check out a bit of SCOTUS history on what happens during the Supreme Court Conference.

Also, Jeff Schreiber noted (from the WSJ MarketWatch site) and Dr. Orly Taitz (one of the lawyers involved in Keyes v. Bowen and Lightfoot v. Bowen) mentioned that the We The People Foundation will be holding a conference at the National Press Club on Monday, December 8, at 1:30pm ET. Dr. Taitz thinks it’ll be aired on C-SPAN.

Here’s an excerpt from the WSJ MarketWatch article:

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

My sources say that the Supreme Court has received in excess of 1 million letters regarding the eligibility issue and that Bob Schulz of the We The People Foundation has received at least 400 interview requests from media outlets based on his Chicago Tribune ad, “An Open Letter to Barack Obama“.

An up-to-date listing of lawsuits can be found here.

Update: theobamafile.com is reporting the following:

Joe Thunder, LA radio personality, reports that Big Media is on scene at SCOTUS,  ABC, NBC, Washington Times, et al.  There are about 50 people there now.  Prayer happened.  Media is interviewing everyone.

It’s perfect.  No signs, well behaved, etc.  Let’s hope it holds.  Media is calling us as well.

A radio station in New York City wants to talk to me about Leo.  Then Florida called.  Then Georgia called.  Then Pennsylvania called.  Then Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, and Denver called.   Now I have 3 more waiting me on in the next hour — Ed

Update: Michelle Maulkin opines.

Update: CNN video.

-Phil

Also, Professor Turley is to be on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman” at 8:00pm ET tonight.

Leo also posted that he will not be at tomorrow’s Supreme Court vigil and made further cautious statements about it…

JONATHAN TURLEY CORRECTS BLOG – THANK YOU PROF. TURLEY
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE:] JONATHAN TURLEY HAS CORRECTED HIS BLOG AND POSTED MY LETTER TO HIM.  PROPER RESPECT TO MR. TURLEY FOR TAKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO CORRECT THE PUBLIC RECORD.

“Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately …” SNIP

I’ve snipped my original post.  No point leaving the old post up.

 

DEC 5TH VIGIL AT SCOTUS: PLEASE DONT BRING SIGNS – LEO DONOFRIO WILL NOT BE AT VIGIL
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE: 6:29 PM] The Supreme Court Police have instructed that no signs be brought to the Supreme Court tomorrow.  Amen to that.  Once again, I am not encouraging participation.  I would be devastated if somebody went there and got into an argument or a fight or arrested.

[UPDATE 5:00 PM] Leo Donofrio is not involved in the planning of this vigil.  It just developed by its own momentum. I am not asking anybody to go and I have said it will have zero effect on the outcome.  But now that it appears to be happening, I am trying to make people understand there are dangers involved with such an event.  My advice below is just a guide for anybody planning on going, but I am not encouraging participation.  I will be on the radio to dicsuss this – BRIEFLY- with Joe Thunder tonight at 9:00 PM EST, via the Plains Radio Network.

LEO DONOFRIO WILL NOT BE AT THE VIGIL.  PLEASE BRING NO SIGNS.

I do appreciate that people want to support the case, but please understand that nothing is going to influence the Supreme Court Justices.

I know people are planning on bringing signs regarding the misleading main stream media reports, but it’s not a good idea to bring any signs at all.   Joe Thunder is also calling for a ban on all signs.   Signs signify a protest.  Make it a vigil – silent, dignified, all inclusive.

- Please don’t get roped into arguments.

- Please don’t bring megaphones.

- People who do not agree with my law suit should be welcomed and respected.

PLEASE DO EXACTLY AS THE SUPREME COURT POLICE INSTRUCT.

Naturally, the piece isn’t without its flaws, as Jeff mentions:

The article also incorrectly states that the Court declined to hear Philip Berg’s case against Obama, first filed here in Philadelphia on August 21, 2008. In fact, Berg’s case is still active, a motion for emergency injunction was filed yesterday, and my sources in Berg’s office and in the Court tell me that it, too, will likely be scheduled for the routine conference within a week to ten days.

So, there you go. Perhaps some slightly breaking news, there. Berg’s case could be scheduled for Conference sometime in the next two weeks.

Tomorrow is just around the corner…

-Phil

Update: Family Security Matters picked up on why the need for the President to be natural born.

Update: Jeff Schreiber provides an excellent round-up of Drudge’s posting as well as We The People Foundation’s National Press Club event slated for December 8 at 1:30pm.

The following is Leo’s letter he sent to ABC News…

ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Below is the text of a letter I just sent to ABC News:

Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.

The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you.  I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born.  You wrote,

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen – at birth – a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.  The word “born” has meaning.  It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.  Obama had dual nationality at birth.  The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”  If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.

And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008.  That was a decision taken after consideration ofthe full Court.

There are two docket entries for Nov. 19.  One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court.  The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court.  She will set you and your story straight.

The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court.  There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference.  In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action.  There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled

“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”

You may find it here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon.  On page 3, it states:

“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“

Now go back and check the docket url for my case.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

Another misleading element of your story is the headline.  The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.  Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President.  I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.  Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.  So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.

If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.

My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case.  After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report.  We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission.  I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.

Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

The first, a law professor at Columbia Law, stated that Donofrio’s situation of the Justices allowing a renewed stay application to be considered for Certiorari is very rare. He thinks that the only reason why Associate Justice Thomas accepted the renewed application after Associate Justice Souter denied it is to have all 9 Justices formally deny it in Conference, based on the idea that Leo could continually try to resubmit his application until one of the Justices allowed it.

I think you can see where there are some logical flaws in that premise. From the start, maybe Justice Thomas saw something differently than did Justice Souter. It’s not like these folks aren’t big boys and girls who can’t keep their egos in check if one decides to think differently than the other and consider the same case. While the professor’s theory is plausible, I see it as unlikely, for if the case were really flawed, surely Justice Thomas would have similarly denied it.

The second, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who, as an expert on immigration, thinks the case is “going nowhere,” going on to say, “we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that Obama really was born in Hawaii. FactCheck.org’s site still shows evidence that since Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen as a colonist under the UK at the time, any children of his would have automatically become UK citizens, no matter where in the world they would have been born and, consequentially, Barack Obama would have had, at birth, dual citizenship, which is a no-no for the Presidency under the Constitution.

This is exactly the premise upon which Leo has built his case.

-Phil

Meanwhile — the blogosphere is still abuzz over Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The Supreme Court will decide Friday if it will hear a case challenging whether the president-elect is a natural-born citizen. One similar case has already been thrown out.

Leo’s response:

No similar case has been thrown out.  My case is not similar to any other case except for Cort Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State [Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz] which has been submitted by renewed application to Justice Scalia.  If Baier is referring to Berg’s case, he is twice mistaken.  Berg’s case is not similar to mine.  Berg never raised the issue that Obama is not eligible because he was a British citizen at birth.  Furthermore, only Berg’s emergency application was denied.  His full petition for certiorari is still pending although it probably will be denied on the issue of “standing”.  He went to SCOTUS via the federal courts while my case took the proper State court route.  That’s another thing which makes our cases vastly different but the main stream media can’t seem to get their heads around the chasm of difference between the two cases.  Regardless, Berg’s case hasn’t been thrown out as of yet.

Again, why can’t the main stream media simply call the SCOTUS Public Affairs Office and get their facts straight.

Also, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has had his docket updated (see “Supreme Court Info,” to the top-right in the sidebar, for links) to reflect SCOTUS including the letter he sent to all nine Justices which included copies of official Judicial Misconduct allegations against the New Jersey Judge who handled his initial NJ Appellate Division case. Since this letter was not an official pleading, Leo was able to send this directly to the Justices.

The complete blog entry follows…

SCOTUS UPDATES for Dec 2, 2008: CORT WROTNOWSKI HAND DELIVERS EMERGENCY APPLICATION – DONOFRIO LETTER REGARDING NJ JUDGE MISCONDUCT HITS DOCKET
Posted in Uncategorized on December 2, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

SCOTUS UPDATES for December 2, 2008: CORT WROTNOWSKI HAND DELIVERS EMERGENCY APPLICATION – DONOFRIO LETTER REGARDING NJ JUDGE MISCONDUCT HITS DOCKET

Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469) a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

In my case, SCOTUS Docket No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, the docket has been updated to include the letter I sent to all nine Justices which included copies of official Judicial Misconduct allegations against the New Jersey Judge who handled my initial NJ Appellate Division case.  This is important because the letter made clear that should the SCOTUS request an official copy of the case file from the lower court, the file on record there is fraudulent.

It’s significant to note that I sent this letter directly to the nine Justices.  While I did send a copy to the Clerk of the Court, the copies I sent to Justices went directly to them without asking the Clerk to distribute them.  Since this was not an official pleading, I wasn’t required to go through the Clerk’s office.  The letter was sent on November 22, 2008 but has only just hit the Docket today, December 2, 2008.  I didn’t think this letter would become part of the Docket.  I expect members of the press might be able to find out what this means. Nobody in the Clerk’s office will take my calls.