ANOTHER COMMENT:
I arrived at SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM. Went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Suoter’s desk as was required by Rule 22(1):
“1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.” (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Bickle agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Suoter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.
“Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/22.html
The next day, I received no message. It’s important that the disposition be delivered by speedy means because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).
I went back to Scotus on Election Day, but was told Mr. Bickle wasn’t available to speak with me. He also was not picking up his phone.
On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickle and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Suoter because Mr. Bickle didn’t think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. Mr. Bickle told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari. And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :
- I followed the Court Rules perfectly
- we spoke all about this on Monday and he agreed with my interpretation of the rules then
- my case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ
- and the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary
All the while speaking to Mr. Bickle, I stayed calm and gentle while the anger was seething inside of me hoping he would Docket it, even at this late stage so I would have something to show people when I finally went public.
It’s not the Clerk’s job job to play Judge. His job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickle basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own.
After explaining Bush v. Gore to him, where the Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case, but he still tried to persuade me to drop it anyway stating, “Do you want to redo the election?”
[See Bush v. Gore, page 1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]
I told him that if Obama were found to be disqualified, there would be no new election, but rather the electors would vote for somebody else, another Democrat. He kept trying to convince me to let it go stating that, “Justice Souter will just deny it and so will Justice Thomas”, but I wouldn’t let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.
The next day, I checked back and the case had finally been docketed, but in a completely incorrect manner. Bickle Docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my screenshot of the original Docket):
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Three glaring errors:
- The case was filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th
- My application was for a “Stay” not an “injunction”. Filing for an injunction does NOT get you expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.
- I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air.
I got on the phone and left three VERY loud and very direct messages to the effect of, “FIX my docket or IM going to bring allege criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the SCOTUS Clerk’s office.” I told him that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I had kept solid phone records, and that I my pleadings were stamped Nov 3rd.
One hour later, Mr. Bickle had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also listed it finally as a “Stay” application NOT an injunction. But whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Suoter had ALREADY denied the application...ON NOV 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket, listed no disposition.
Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears now:
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari,
submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
None of this makes any sense.
Furthermore, the reference to a “pending” Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the level of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial was “without prejudice”. If I were also in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., then the denial might not be considered “with prejudice” and in that case, Mr. Bickle might once again decide not to pass on the paperwork to Justice Thomas.
Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a Full Petition, so the Docket is STILL not correct as I intend to resubmit the Stay application this week.
And if you knew what happened to this case in the NJ Appellate Division, then you’d be just as worried as I am now that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court might not ever see this case unless they actually hear about it outside of the Court first. People have taken sides despite the law and despite the Courts role as allegedly fair arbiters.
If the Court Rules had been followed to the letter of the law, as we should expect of the highest court in the land, then this is how things should have gone down: Since I put the case properly before the Supreme Court a day before the election, it should have been “promptly” given to Justice Suoter who should have granted or denied it right away, and then I should have been informed by “speedy means” of the disposition. If it was denied, then I was entitled to a piece of paper saying so, and then I would have been able to get a supplemental letter to Justice Thomas along with 10 copies of the Stay Application to the whole Court.
This case was stopped. Why? I don’t have enough information to say who was behind it and why, but I know for a fact the case was not handled correctly. And I know that the law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency.
I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well, and I I’m not backing down. I need people to help spread the word about this case so that it has a chance of getting to Justice Clarence Thomas’s desk and to the rest of the Court.
The Supreme Court rules are clear. Under Rule 22(6), I was entitled to be informed of the disposition of my case by “appropriately speedy means”. Having submitted it on Monday, I heard NOTHING from Mr. Bickle by Thursday. But he, a lousy Clerk, disposed of the case when he got it back on Monday, but refused to inform me. Why didn’t he inform me by “speedy means” that the case was not passed on to Justice Suoter?
This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business.
And the citizens of this country should be angry about that.
Leo Donofrio
The Left is destroying our Republic. If we can't trust the Supreme Court or the President (or, Congress for that matter) we are no longer a nation. States need to begin brushing up on succession law. If this stands we need to start thinking about dumping the Federal government and returning to constitutional protection.
IF the law doesn't apply to them, then why do IRS rules and statutes apply to us?
The people in authority over us seem afraid to even ask the question much less rule to force Obama to produce a LEGAL birth certificate. I believe we are seeing the breakdown of the US Constitution right before our eyes with the help of our courts and politicians. This is truly a political coup with the Democrats at it’s core.