Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, GA senator

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Saxby Chambliss of
Georgia regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over President-
elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution
states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the
Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within
the United States.” President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship

during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate,
which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed
by a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Donofrio, regarding President-elect
Obama’s citizenship. Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding President-
elect Obama’s citizenship, which claim he was really born on foreign
soil, Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President-elect Obama was born
in Hawaii but contends he still held foreign citizenship at birth. Mr.
Donofrio’s lawsuit argues that since President-elect Obama’s father was
a Kenyan citizen and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the
United Kingdom at the time of President-elect Obama’s birth, then Obama
was a British citizen at birth and not eligible to be President of the
United States.

Another attorney, Mr. Berg, has filed a lawsuit regarding President-
elect Obama’s citizenship and is waiting to hear whether the Supreme
Court will take up the case or not. A federal judge in Eastern
Pennsylvania threw out Mr. Berg’s lawsuit in October, saying he lacked
legal standing to bring the challenge since he could not show he faced
individual harm even if he could prove his claims about President-elect
Obama’s citizenship. The judge did not get to the merits of the case.
Mr. Berg is appealing the standing issue to the Supreme Court.

If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth
issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The
certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic,
shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest
congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my
web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know
whenever I may be of assistance.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss stated:

“President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign
by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was
born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

The Obama campaign has never produced a birth certificate despite
many attempts in court to force him to. Obama, instead has spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars and employed numerous attorneys
to avoid proving eligibility.

Senator Chambliss then stated:

“If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth
issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.”

That may be true. However, one must prove that one is born in the US.
NOtice he begins with “If a person is born in the United states.”

Senator Chambliss then stated:

“The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as
authentic, shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Hawaii Health Dept. Officials never stated that Obama was born in
Hawaii. See below.

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

Latest information on court cases

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

This is the kickoff article on a series called “Constitution Hall of Shame.”
It is clear that we already have a constitutional crisis in the country before
Barack Obama theoretically gets inaugurated. The US Constitution has been
ignored, misunderstood and trampled on during the 2008 election year. We not
only have a candidate, Obama, that is clearly ineligible, but probably is not
a US citizen, i.e, illegal alien. Barack Obama, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, has thumbed his nose at the rule of law and American public.
So, to add to the normal political bias and posturing and tradition based
election processes, we now have a total disregard for the US Constitution.

The US Congress will meet soon to count and authenticate the Electoral
College vote.

“January 8, 2009

Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009
from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008
presidential election. The Congress meets in joint session to count the
electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President
of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly
submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.
The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes
(270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the
President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits
conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting
concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes
of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in
Congress.” Read more

Since the Electoral College vote can be challenged in Congress, we will focus
on senators and representatives that have made comments that clearly indicate
that they do not take their oath of office seriously. We will give them a
chance to respond and atone for their dereliction of duty. This will also
serve as a forum to educate and hold accountable their colleagues.

The first member of the Constitution Hall of Shame is not a congressman. It
is the state of Connecticut and includes the Secretary of State, Susan
Bysiewicz, State Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal. Here is the damning paragraph in a
letter received from Susan Bysiewicz:

“On November 3, 2008 Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice
Chase T. Rogers dismissed the case after hearing testimony from my
attorneys and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the
Greenwich resident who filed the action.  The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski,
alleged that I should not have placed Senator Obama’s name on the ballot.
The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated
that there is no doubt that the Democratic presidential candidate
was born there and that the state’s health department possesses
Senator Obama’s original birth certificate.  This is now a matter
of public record.”

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

So, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal,
what is your excuse?

Ignorance
Apathy
Party politics
Fear

Please respond with your reasons for your behaviour.

An apology to the American public is in order.

A new page at the top of the Citizen Wells blog will be devoted to the
Constitution Hall of Shame.

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

• The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
  Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
• Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
  party line over law will not be tolerated.
• Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
  for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
  certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
• Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
  and should be applauded for doing so.
• There are consequences for false attesting.
• One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
  null and void.
• Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

08A469	WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:

• Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
  born citizen.
• Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
  College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
• Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
  to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
  the states ignoring this?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent, December 12, 2008

** Update Below **

This was just posted on this blog by Lawdawg:

Submitted on 2008/12/12 at 11:12am
#08A469 Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent.
-Lawdawg

** Update **

From Leo Donofrio’s site:

“[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 :  Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false.  A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision.  She indicated there will be no decision until Monday.  The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, US Supreme Court, December 8, 2008, Conference of December 12, 2008, Denied by Justice Ginsburg, Referred by Justice Scalia, Application for stay, Leo Donofrio

The Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court, has been distributed for
conference on December 12, 2008. Leo Donofrio, whose application for
stay was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008, believes that the
Cort Wrotnowski case has a better chance than his case had.

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.

 

---

~~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

Donofrio Application denied by US Supreme Court, Leo Donofrio response, Wrotnowski case still pending, Supreme Court Justices, No statement, Donofrio vs Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State, US Constitution not upheld by Justices or NJ officials, December 8, 2008

Leo Donofrio’s application for stay with the US Supreme Court was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Donofrio.

“DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
[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.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

I have respect for the institution of the US Supreme Court.

Respect for the Justices of the US Supreme Court has to be earned and the jury is still out.

wethepeoplefoundation.org, We The People Foundation, Press Conference, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, Washington DC, Robert Schulz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, Obama not eligible lawsuits, US Supreme Court answer, Chicago Tribune letter to Obama

The We The People Foundation will hold a Press Conference on Monday, December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Robert Schulz of the We The People Foundation will discuss the letter to Obama published in the Chicago Tribune and then the plaintiffs in the major lawsuits before the US Supreme Court will speak.

The following is from a Wall Street Journal, Market Watch article dated December 4, 2008:

“On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.”

Read more here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D

The following is from the We The People Foundation site:

“Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers. 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. 

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. 

As a formal “Notice of a Constitutional Violation,” the Petition naturally includes the People’s inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

For the D.C. press conference the WTP Foundation has reserved the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club from 1-4 pm on Monday, December 8, 2008. We are hopeful that C-SPAN may cover what could be a pivotal, historic event.”

Read more here:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

I spoke to Robert Schulz several weeks ago and he stated that it was only after Obama began avoiding requests for proof of his eligibility and using legal wrangling to escape confrontation that he began to believe there was a serious problem with Barack Obama.

2008 election, Obama not eligible, States have power to challenge, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, Federal Election Law, State laws, Secretary of State, Election Boards, Congress, Electoral College, Berg Donofrio Wrotnowski lawsuits, Hold accountable

The founding fathers set up guidelines for presidential elections and laid out the rules in the US
Constitution and subsequently Federal Election laws. There are two aspects that stand out about the
rules. First, the eligibility requirement for president is defined. But even more clear than
presidential eligibility, the powers given to the states are clearly defined. The states are given
control of the election process through the vote by the Electoral College Electors. The state
election laws vary widely and regardless of how explicit and detailed they are written, they all
fall under the guidelines and rules of the US Constitution. The ultimate objective is to elect a
qualified president. All laws and procedures must work to that end. The Electoral College Electors
are bound to uphold the US Constitution and therefore must only vote for a constitutionally
qualified candidate.

State laws have evolved out of tradition and indeed tradition drives many procedures and opinions
about allowing candidates on ballots and proceeding through the election process to being chosen
by Electoral College Electors. Allowing candidates to appear on ballots from instructions by major
political parties has evolved into many variations by state. The political parties are given no
special powers in the US Constitution. It is clear that each state has the full power and obligation
to ensure that a candidate running for president is qualified to hold office. To do otherwise
threatens to disenfranchise a myriad of voters. The citizens of each state expect state officers and
election officials to protect them and their votes.

It is clear that the states have been given the power to control the election process through the
Electors vote. Some states have recognized their power to challenge eligibility in state laws. It is also
clear in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of
Rights, that any powers not reserved for the federal government or the states, are reserved for the
people. Any state taking the position, incorrectly, that they have no power to challenge the
credentials of a presidential candidate have relinquished that power to their citizens.

One thing is clear from the research I have done. There is much confusion and misunderstanding about
the election process and responsibilities. As stated above, tradition is a huge driving force. I have
reviewed the US Constitution, Federal Election law and many state election statutes. I have also read
legal opinions and writings from constitutional experts. Below are federal and state laws and the major
players who have responsibilities in governing elections, state officers and election officials, judges
and congressmen.

Read about the US Constitution, Federal Law and Electors

Laws applicable in NC

Examples of state laws that address the issue of challenging eligibility

North Carolina

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

Georgia

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
“(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.”

Florida

102.168  Contest of election.–

“(1)  Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.”

Examples of ignorance, bias and tradition in positions of responsibility:

Connecticut Secretary of State
Susan Bysiewicz

“The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated that there is no doubt that the Democratic
presidential candidate was born there and that the state’s health department posseses Senator Obama’s
original birth certificate. This is now a matter of public record.”

What the Hawaii Health Officials said

Judge Surrick ruling on Philip J Berg case
Constitutional expert Ellis Washington responds:

“Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.”

Read more

Senator Mel Martinez of Florida

The following is from a response from Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. Mr. Martinez clearly has no
understanding of the US Constitution  or election laws. The scary part is that Congress is part of the
last checks and balances during the election. Congress has the power to sertify the Electoral College
votes and challenge them.

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.”

I contacted Senator Martinez’ office this morning and no one has responded. If Senator Martinez would like
to respond, we welcome that. If you are a citizen of the state of Florida you may want to contact Senator
Martinez and voice your concerns over his lack of knowledge. I am certain he is not the only member of
Congress to be informed.
What we have here is a failure to communicate and a real mess.

What can we do?

Continue to inform all of those involved in the election process of their legal duties and demand that
Barack Obama prove legally that he is eligible.

For those state officers, election officials, Electors, judges and congressmen that fail to do their
job and uphold the US Constitution, hold them accountable. State laws vary but their are usually remedies
available such as recall, impeachment and dismissal. Don’t forget, you have more power than is normally
recognized. The Tenth Amendment gives us plenty of power. Also, make sure you share information with
others and ask them to do the same.

God help us if the US Supreme Court fails us

Cort Wrotnowski lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Update, December 2, 2008, Emergency Application hand delivered, Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State, SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski avoids anthrax screening, Delivered to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

Here is the latest on the Cort Wrotnowski lawsuit, Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State,
that is before the US Supreme Court.

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

In my case, SCOTUS Docket No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, the docket has been updated to include the letter I sent to all nine Justices which included copies of official Judicial Misconduct allegations against the New Jersey Judge who handled my initial NJ Appellate Division case.  This is important because the letter made clear that should the SCOTUS request an official copy of the case file from the lower court, the file on record there is fraudulent.

It’s significant to note that I sent this letter directly to the nine Justices.  While I did send a copy to the Clerk of the Court, the copies I sent to Justices went directly to them without asking the Clerk to distribute them.  Since this was not an official pleading, I wasn’t required to go through the Clerk’s office.  The letter was sent on November 22, 2008 but has only just hit the Docket today, December 2, 2008.  I didn’t think this letter would become part of the Docket.  I expect members of the press might be able to find out what this means. Nobody in the Clerk’s office will take my calls.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/