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

08A469

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

CitizenWells’ letter to the Electoral College presents the next potential opporutnity along the process of attempting to inform the nation about Barack Obama’s seeming ineligibility to serve in the office of the President. Also, I have my thoughts on the next steps in this process.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

State-based initiatives for electoral reform can be found here.

Naturally, this posting will be updated as circumstances warrant.

Update: CitizenWells isn’t happy about this decision at all. Read up on what he’s doing about it.

Update: InvestigatingObama’s question may be “asked and answered:” Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?

-Phil

[UPDATE - 11:10 AM Sat. Dec 13, 2008]: Yesterday, a SCOTUS clerk told Cort his decision wouldn’t be released untill Monday.  This was at approximately 11:00 AM while the Justices were still behind closed doors.

Tonight I will publish a point by point breakdown explaining why the application I prepared for Cort’s brief was so much stronger than the one in my own.]

Update: SCOTUS Orders just out. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz not mentioned.

During today’s regular weekly Friday Conference, one of the cases that the Supreme Court will be considering on whether to proceed forward is Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, a case very similar to Donofrio v. Wells, only with much more substantive analysis and significantly less lower court procedural flaws.

SCOTUSblog notes:

The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference this morning, orders from which could be released as early as this afternoon. 

The InvestigatingObama blog has a great post today where they discuss how they will be presenting further information on Barack Obama’s legal challenges as a means of similarly helping everyone cut through the misinformation of the mainstream media (and, unfortunately, right-leaning sources, too).

Regardless of when the Supremes make a decision (could be either today or Monday), I’ll be sure to make a posting here Based on past history, however, it would appear that if the Supremes do not say word about Cort’s case today, it will likely have been denied; the Supremes have granted or denied Certiorari or other grants/denials on both Fridays and Mondays; we’ll simply have to see what happens.

A current listing of eligibility related lawsuits can be found here.

Update: Per Leo’s latest posting:

[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false.  A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision.  She indicated there will be no decision until Monday.  The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

Update: A factoid over at InvestigatingObama indicates the following:

BTW, the SCOTUS has not denied Donofrio’s NJ case, only his request for a stay while they confer over the Wrotnowski, CT case, Dec. 12.

-Phil

-Phil

A LITTLE MORE ON CHESTER ARTHUR FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Posted in Uncategorized on December 10, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Yesterday, after Cort filed the supplemental brief at the Supreme Court, we dropped by the Library of Congress and took a look at the index of papers for Chester Arthur.  Compared to most of the other Presidents, there’s barely anything on Chester.  The index is a skinny little pamphlet, thirteen pages long.  The introduction to the index begins with a letter from Chester A. Arthur III:

“You may be sure that I am as interested as you are in having the Arthur papers finally come to rest in the Library of Congress.  The ones that I have in my possession have traveled a good deal — over to Europe, back to Colorado, California, and now here.  During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them — not even me.  When they finally came into my possession.  I was amazed that there were so few…

Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather’s First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.”

It’s quite a dramatic start for a Library of Congress index document.  The intrigue continues as follows:

“For many years President Arthur was represented in the Manuscript Division by a single document… Beginning in 1910 and continuing to the present, successive chiefs of the division have done what they could do to assemble surviving Arthur manuscripts.  For the first of these chiefs, Gaillard Hunt, who in that year intitiated the search for the main body of Arthur Papers, there was little but discouragement as a result of his inquiries.  However, his persistence and what he was able to learn were to encourage his successors.

He wrote first to Col. William G. Rice and learned the address of Mrs. John E. McElroy, Arthur’s sister and official hostess during his administration.  Mr. Hunt wrote to her and learned from her that Chester A. Arthur, Jr., controlled the papers.  After several attempts, Mr. Hunt learned Mr. Arthur’s address and wrote to him.  The reply — written on March 13, 1915, five years after the search began — provided the first concrete but frustrating evidence:

‘I beg you will excuse my tardiness in replying to your letter of November 4th [1914].  The question of my father’s papers is a very sore subject with me.

‘These papers were supposed to be in certain chests which were stored on their receipt from Washington, in the cellar of 123 Lexington Avenue.  After my father’s death, they were removed, I believe, by direction of the executors to a store house recommended by Mr. McElroy at Albany.  Several years ago on making my residence in Colorado, I sent for these chests of papers and found in them nothing but custom house records of no particular value or importance.  Where the papers they were supposed to contain have vanished, is a mystery.’ “

The story just keeps getting stranger.

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

In a previous posting, Leo commented that Cort’s case is procedurally much more sound than his was.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Leo and Cort’s recent joint commentary on Cort’s case being distributed to Conference follows…

-Phil

WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA – DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 – SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia.  It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12.   The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject.   This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898.  But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.  At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age.   Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year.  It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President  (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States.   The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court.  This is not a rally, protest or vigil.   If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski

Leo updated his blog:

[UPDATE 2:44pm] - Cort’s docket has been updated at SCOTUS.  The application has been “refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia”.

Also:

[UPDATE 3:12 pm]Cort’s Docket now shows that the renewed application to Justice Scalia is dated Nov. 29.  That’s the date Cort express mailed the original papers.  We don’t know if they’ve passed the original papers on or if they used the new papers submitted in person today by Cort.  If they used the old papers, then why was Cort told yesterday it would take seven days?  Perhaps they used the new papers with the original date of filing.  We don’t know.

-Phil

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.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski’s case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court.  She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008.  After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

Update: Dr. Orly Taitz’s commentary. Also, CountUsOut is showing a rallying cry to protest in front of SCOTUS, Friday, December 5, 8am ET until whenever.

Update: Thanks to AtlasShrugs for an honorable mention and helping to bring this story further to light.

The following is the full text of Leo’s blog entry…

CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE] Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski will be on Plains Radiotonight at 7:00 PM EST

CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS

by Bob Vernon, Honest American News - Plains Radio Network

December 1, 2008

On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was updated to show that the “emergency stay application” to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”  At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court.

In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone.  Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference.

Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm – by direct contact with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office – that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court.

On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio’s emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008.  Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference.  Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled:

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

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

In that document, on page 3, it advises:

“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.”

Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference.  Mr. Donofrio was correct.

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court.  She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008.  After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.

Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas.

Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight.  SeePlainsradio.com for details.

Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas

Leo and Cort are now awaiting the docket to be formally updated (we know how that goes!).

Update: Leo said, “We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today.” That part is now there, and distributed to the Justices.

Below includes the full posting…

WROTNOWSKI V. CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE RENEWED TO JUSTICE SCALIA
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Today we are watching for the SCOTUS AUTOMATED Docket to be updated with two important developments, one in Cort’s case and one in mine.

We hope the docket will reflect that Cort Wrotnowski has renewed his application to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of this morning.  Cort’s application for an emergency stay and/or injunction was denied by the Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on November 26, 2008.  Cort sent it by Express mail on Saturday Nov. 29, 2008.

We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today.  This was sent via FED EX on Wed. Nov. 26 and was delivered on Friday Nov. 28 at 9:05 AM, but it still hasn’t been updated to the docket…see Fed ex tracking number 866846734555

I have a call in to a case manager as well as to a supervisor.  Hopefully the docket will be updated today.The supplemental brief only has one point, a discussion of Cort Wrotnowski’s case and a full disclosure to the SCOTUS that I helped Cort prepare his application.

Also, I will have another blog later today concerning the most recent update to the Donofrio v. Wells docket which hit the docket Nov. 28, but was backdated to Nov. 19.  That entry states that the application was referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.  This supplements the “DISTRIBUTED for Conference” entry and sheds some light on the issue.  What remains a mystery is why this was updated nine days late.

Check back later for full coverage.

Following is a current copy of the Supreme Court docket…

These files are considered freely distributable:

• Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State of Connecticut (rich text format) - docket no. 08A469
• Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey (rich text format) - docket no. 08A047

You can also find their docket numbers on the upper right portion of my sidebar.

-Phil

Media alert: Wrotnowski and Donofrio will be interviewed by Bob Vernon on the Plains radio Network at 10:30PM EST; Mr. Donofrio was also on the Scott Hennen show today (MP3). This was the first main stream media exposure of the case. Please see the link and look for an audio file at this blog to be uploaded soon.

SCOTUS Docket: 08a469

A full posting is available below.

PDF document: Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

TREASON AT SCOTUS? BICKELL OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AGAIN IN WROTNOWSKI V. CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE

- Wrotnowski and Donofrio will be interviewed by Bob Vernon on the Plains radio Network at 10:30PM EST.

- Mr. Donofrio was also on the Scott Hennenshow today. This was the first main stream media exposure of the case. Please see the link and look for an audio file at this blog to be uploaded soon.

US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.        

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickellthat Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstructDonofrio v. Wells [docket], the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Connerin Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987). 

Furthermore, the issue was fully briefed – in the application submitted to the SCOTUS yesterday by Mr. Wrotnowski based on Donofrio’sresearch, and Donofrio’s fear that Bickell would try to pull the same obstruction of justice again.

Furthermore, Mr. Bickell is fully aware that the Supreme Court is hearing this issue in full conference despite Bickell’s best attempts to stop that from happening.

Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickellwas going to try the same tactic again.

Donofrio was right. Today, Bickell informed Wrotnowski that he was refusing to pass the emergency stay application on to Justice Ginsberg.
In a follow up phone call, Mr. Wrotnowski pointed out to Mr. Bickell that the issues he raised were properly briefed in the application and that it was the job of a Supreme Court Justices to make decisions of substantive law, not Mr. Bickell. Bickell then berated with mocking insults.

Mr. Wrotnowski has been through two lower courts and is now using our US Supreme Court rules to properly petition our Supreme Court for relief. This is outrageous and Mr. Bickell needs to be fired immediately and brought up on criminal charges for obstruction of justice, and possibly treason.

Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.

As of 12:38 PM the case has not been docketed.

If you think that justice has been obstructed then please voice your opinions to the appropriate authorities. This is a very urgent issue which is now causing out entire system of justice to be overturned by a single clerk.

Mr. Wrotnowski

[UPDATE. WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE… 

…has been docketed, despite having initially been denied process by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell. Wrotnowski’s case has been submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Circuit Justice for the 2nd Circuit (includes Connecticut).

POSTED BY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT 9:12 AM

 

 

No. 08A469	Â
Title:	Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:	Â
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of Connecticut

Case Nos.:

(SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008	Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:	Â	Â
Cort Wrotnowski	1057 North Street	(202) 862-8554
Â	Greenwich, CT	Â
Party name: Cort Wrotnowski

US

POSTED BY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT 9:12 AM