Schneller v Cortes Update (RE: Obama, SCOTUS)

SCOTUS ^ | 6/22/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

Jun 22 2009 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.

[rxsid]

In reference to:
Schneller v. Cortes: Distributed for SCOTUS Conference (RE: Obama)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2272256/posts

[rxsid]

Ping.

[netmilsmom]

Clickable link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2272256/posts

[hoosiermama]

Justice Stevens dissents.

[trumandogz]

Stevens dissents.

That's both interesting and funny.

[GQuagmire]

Not to sound like a dummy, but was this dismissed?

[rxsid]

"Justice Stevens dissents."

Yeah, interesting!

[Principled]

Was this a decision about bald headedness?

[Principled]

A concerned Pennsylvania citizen and the pro se Plaintiff in Schneller v. Cortes, James Schneller had originally brought a suit against his Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pedro Cortes, alleging that Pennsylvania’s certified ballots were improperly transmitted to the federal government due to a stay of such activity and that Sen. Arlen Specter had been improperly placed as an Elector for the McCain/Palin ticket. His application for Writ of Certiorari had originally been denied by Associate Justice Souter back on January 8, 2009 (docket).

[rxsid]

"Was this a decision about bald headedness?"

See post #1, and linked in post #3.

[Principled]

or, see post 9 ;)

[Non-Sequitur]

Justice Stevens dissents.

I think what Justice Stevens dissented to was the order that no further non-criminal petitions of any kind be accepted from Schneller unless he pays the docketing fee required in Rule 38and the complaint complies with the format requirements outlined in Rule 33, paragraph 1. I don't think it referes to the vote to deny the writ of certiorari because those votes are secret. But it does sound like the court is fed up with Schneller and his antics.

[Non-Sequitur]

Not to sound like a dummy, but was this dismissed?

The Supreme Court refused to take the matter up. So it's the same thing.

[Red Steel]

Fees fees for everything nowadays. I'm sure they can come up with fees fees:

------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES
..Part VII. Practice and Procedure

---

Rule 38. Fees

Under 28 U. S. C. §1911, the fees charged by the Clerk are:

• (a) for docketing a case on a petition for a writ of certiorari or on appeal or for docketing any other proceeding, except a certified question or a motion to docket and dismiss an appeal under Rule 18.5, $300;
• (b) for filing a petition for rehearing or a motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing, $200;
• (c) for reproducing and certifying any record or paper, $1 per page; and for comparing with the original thereof any photographic reproduction of any record or paper, when furnished by the person requesting its certification, $.50 per page;
• (d) for a certificate bearing the seal of the Court, $10; and
• (e) for a check paid to the Court, Clerk, or Marshal that is returned for lack of funds, $35.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...

[Lurking Libertarian]

"Justice Stevens dissents." Yeah, interesting!

Stevens always dissents from orders that the court will not accept further petitions from someone. (The Court does that only with those they regard as cranks.) Stevens has written that he opposes such orders because everyone should have a first amendment right of access to the Court.