Replies

Thank you. I will have to finish reading it later.

It appears to be very well written, and has a different angle than the Berg case had. There are still standing issues, though according to the papers, the case was dismissed by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction and not standing specifically.

He certainly has made the court aware of the factual issues as well as legal issues:

“Obama was facing multiple legal challenges to his eligibility and was actively concealing all records of his past from public view.”

There are a couple little flaws in Cort Wrotnowski's case. His pleading states that his case was dismissed because he did not "allege facts that would confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court under General Statutes [Sec.] 9-323." I am not sure what those non-alleged facts were but in his Supreme Court appeal he argues that the lower Court was wrong in relying on General Statutes 9-232 because these statutes only apply to cases brought by "electors or candidates." Wrotnowski claims he is neither an elector nor a candidate, but is instead a voter and thus, this section of the law is not applicable.

Problem is that he apparently did not read the definition section of the Connecticut statute where it clearly defines an "elector" as someone who casts a vote by electronic or paper ballot. In other words, an elector under that law is a voter.

His pleading does not seem to argue why he could bring a suit under 9-232, only that 9-232 does not apply to him.

Also, he argues in the beginning that Obama was born in Hawaii but was also a British citizen; the dual citizenship argument. But then later on he demands that the Secretary of State of Connecticut require proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Why does the Secretary of State need to prove an Hawaiian birth if Wrotnowski has already stated that Obama was born in Hawaii?