Skip to comments.NJ VOTER VS. OBAMA ON "NATURAL BORN STATUS" NOW PENDING US SUPREME COURT
Posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:51 PM PST by virgin
NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE
(Excerpt) Read more at democratic-disaster.com ...
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER
On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case did't rely upon questioning Obamas birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.
The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.
The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.
Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.
Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the "natural born citizen" issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the "natural born citizen" test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.
The action was brought as a "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ. An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief. The Appellate Division case generated the following documents:
NJ Appellate Division Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief
Judge Sabatino's initial response
Supplemental Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief
Fax letter to all parties regarding schedule for submitting briefs
Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs
Letter to Judge Sabatino re: Motion for Summary Judgment
Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment, Counts 1and 2
NJ Attorney General's reply brief for Secretary of State Wells
Judge Sabatino's Opinion and Order, 5 pages
Plaintiff then submitted the case on an emergency basis to the New Jersey Supreme Court where a staff attorney reviewed it, requested 10 copies each of the Motion and 75 page appendix, and informed Plaintiff that a Supreme Court Justice would review it immediately with three possible scenarios unfolding:
- the Supreme Court Justice could grant the application on their own
- the Supreme Court Justice could deny the application on their own
- the Supreme Court Justice could call in the other Justices to review the case
Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was informed by telephone that his papers were in order and that other Justices of the Supreme Court had been brought in to discuss the case.
Regardless, later that afternoon, the application for emergency relief was denied.
However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court's five page opinion such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented and relied upon "Movant's Papers" which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.
Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:
"This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."
This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review. Since "Movant's papers" are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.
Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the "national election". Plaintiff's terminology is of vital importance here. Plaintiff's use of the term "national election" includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the electoral college process.
Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008. However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket.
It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as "pending" on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application.
Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application. Justice Suoter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit.
But now that Justice Suoter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.
A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application. This letter will be available at this site before it is actually submitted to the SCOTUS.
Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court. The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay. That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election. The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet.
The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the "natural born issue" determined once and for all. He didn't create a web site or request donations. The suit is self financed.
However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas.
More to follow. Developing.
I’ll be right here waiting.
I’m in the fetal position with my thumb stuck in my mouth.
Off with his briss!
So has anyone ever seen the real birthcertificate yet?
YES WE CAN!
The struggle continues
The *sad* part is -— citizens, honest-to-goodness citizens, are having to BATTLE the system just to verify the CONSTITUTION is being upheld by those SWORN to uphold it. Unbelievably pathetic. Here’s a thought, is undermining the Constitution to the benefit of foreign powers an act of “treason”? Can those fighting to keep a candidate’s origins under cover be called up on charges? Our citizens ought to make an example of these people so this travesty is never repeated.
His passport from college days might prove more useful.
ironic, as the trial lawyers who supported obama want to back frivolous lawsuits
Anything to get him away from the White House.
Joe the Biden at least knows how to play the political game. B. Hussein Obama will give us Communism as soon as he can. Biden would at least wait for a second term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.