Replies

This is for real. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ for all the documents. This case is much stronger than Berg as standing is not an issue. Please spread the links to this far and wide as the case has been subjected to some very unorthodox treatment in the courts.

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 Obama‘s 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.

The following is now posted as of 7:10 PM today, 11/12/08:

UPDATED 7:28 PM: True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief. Mr. Bickell informed me that he has kept all reference to the NJ Supreme Court order off the Docket for the same reason he initially did not feed the Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter back on Nov. 3rd, a semantical falsehood concocted by Mr. Bickell and/or his superiors.

My "Motion For Emergency Injunctive Relief" before the NJ Supreme Court was brought under Rule 2:9-8, which states:

2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters

"When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court..."
A stay is a form of injunctive relief which by its nature pertains to emergent matters. When I appealed to the US Supreme Court, I did so by making an "Application for Emergency Stay". Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief. And the Rule cited by NJ Supreme Court Justice Virginia A. Long in her final denial order specifically refers to "stays and emergency orders":

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." (Emphasis added.)

If Bickell doesn't show on the Docket that the case came from the NJ Supreme Court, it will appear, on the Docket, that I did not exhaust all of my lower court options while I most certainly did. I had to go through a preliminary interview with a NJ Supreme Court staff attorney who recognized the emergency as the election was pending. The staff attorney requested 9 copies of my motion, and 9 copies of my 75 page appendix which cost me $172 to make.

I submitted all of that on Friday October, 31 at 12:27 PM. I have the time-stamp on my Motion. An hour later, I spoke with the staff attorney and was told that multiple Justices were going over the case together. Finally, the NJ Supreme Court denied my request for Emergency Relief, but in so doing, they opened the door to expedited review of the United States Supreme Court when Justice Long, in her order, made specific reference to the NJ Supreme Court having "relied" on "movant's papers" while such papers raised the Constitutional "natural born citizen" issue of first impression.

I did this by the book, the Supreme Court Rule book, but now Mr. Bickell and his keepers are trying to rewrite that book for their own purposes.

Mr. Bickell's motives are now so important that he must be put under oath and questioned about his bizarre, unorthodox, and most likely criminal attempts to keep my case out of the eyes and minds of certain Justices of the US Supreme Court. Indeed, if Mr. Bickell's nefarious clerical sabotage has been concocted to influence the occupancy of The White House than Mr. Bickell may eventually be charged with a felony, if not Treason.

I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law.

It is time to make a stand for the law. For what is now being done to the law in the holiest legal stronghold this world had ever seen, The United States Supreme Court, is nothing short of a blatant attempt to strangle the last breath from our dying Constitutional system of Government created by the people and for the people. There is a force operating here with the intention of squeezing "we the people" out of the way. And that force is dead set against a single citizen setting a virtuous example for the entire nation to witness. Such audacity will apparently not be tolerated.

USA, your law is under attack tonight. Your entire system of Government is under attack with this case. My case is on sold legal ground and it belongs before the US Supreme Court based upon established State law precedent. No exception to standing need be crafted and there are no other procedural hang ups now standing in its way.

I have followed the law to get this case before the highest court in the land and the only thing stopping full review now is interference from a lowly clerk who is sticking it right in your face America. He's basically telling all who are watching this sick play unfold that he holds the keys to the building and he will decide your rights, or lack thereof under the Document.

Time to make a stand, people. And it's a fairly easy one to make. All we need to do is make enough noise so that Justice Thomas and the rest of the court knows that I am coming to the US Supreme Court with my proper papers.

Please don't ask me for instructions on how you do this. I cannot give such advice. All I can do is make my case public, show the documents, quote the law and keep you informed. Any noise you make must be of your own volition and of your own free will.

THERE IS NO NEED TO BREAK ANY LAW. PEACEFUL MEANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE LAW CAN BE UPHELD. BE HEARD BUT DONT GET IN TROUBLE. DONT BREAK THE LAW. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CAN'T KNOW WHO IS UNDER PRESSURE AND WHO IS APPLYING PRESSURE SO BE COOL BUT BE FIRM. TELL THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.

Warm Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio

********************

Why is it that Mr. Bickell smells like a democrat? And this scum works for a liberal judge ... how shcoking! /sarc