Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: 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. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Who said I told you so? Here we go Again!
Place-mark for thread to continue to December 12th
Cort ping!
Also on Berg’s case this entry was noted:
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by respondent Bill Anderson.
Anyone know who Bill Anderson is and why would he file an amicus brief with this case?
Is this about the birth certificate. Hard to keep up with all the goings on.
| No. 08A469 | ||||
| Title: |
|
|||
| Docketed: | ||||
| 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. |
| Nov 26 2008 | Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. |
| Nov 29 2008 | Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. |
| Dec 8 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. |
| Dec 8 2008 | Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia. |
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioner: | ||
| Cort Wrotnowski | 1057 North Street | (202) 862-8554 |
| Greenwich, CT 06831 | ||
| Party name: Cort Wrotnowski | ||
| Attorneys for Respondent: | ||
| Richard Blumenthal | Attorney General | (860) 808-5316 |
| Office of the Attorney General | ||
| 55 Elm Street | ||
| P.O. Box 120 | ||
| Hartford, CT 06141-0120 | ||
| Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State | ||
Cort’s case is very similar to Donofrio’s in challenging Obama’s natural-born citizenship eligibility. Just that it is stronger and better prepared.
Thanks
why is it stronger?
I just asked the mods to put this in the news section instead of Chat since it’s big news here and since the media, et al are gloating that the issue has ended.
Preferably in Breaking News.
Yoo Hoo!
Paging Mr Sroctum Expert
It looks like Donofrio and you were spot on about this. :-)
According to Leo’s blog:
“My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.”
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
Thanks, Veleeeta.
Ping again. Same case, different thread.
[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]
My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.
Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.
After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.
My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.
All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS 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.
I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.
Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.
I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.
PS: please apply "obamatruthfile" to all these threads.
Cool.
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.