See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Donofrio v Obama Citizenship Case Moves To New Supreme Court Level
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://rense.com/general84/scotus.htm
Published: Nov 19, 2008
Author: Devvy Kidd
Post Date: 2008-11-19 23:49:01 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 255
Comments: 6
Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference." On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as: Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas. This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18: http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for- conference-on.html Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process. This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen." Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu_chan (#0)
i think i've read that you believe this birth certificate issue is nonsense. what's your opinion of this news? also, have you read Dr. Edwin Vieira's (constitutional lawyer), OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN? in his opinion, this is a constitutional crisis with very serious consequences. it's rather lengthy, but i think well worth the time as it's compelling and, imo, convincing.
According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court. Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents--Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission--were to respond to Berg's petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday's filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond. It also suggests that a decision on Berg's petition could be imminent. There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the Court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response. Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents. On the docket, the FEC's attorney is noted as being the attorney for all respondents; on yesterday's docket entry, it states that the waiver was filed by "respondents Federal Election Commission, et al." As it were, the FEC's attorney, Gregory Garre, is with the Solicitor General's office, and does not represent Obama or the DNC. While attorneys acting on behalf of a group of defendants or respondents is not necessarily rare, the difference here is the involvement of the Solicitor General's office, a federal office. This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg. "If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg said. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist." "However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama. Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama's status as Illinois senator--a position from which he resigned this past weekend--could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department. While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC's attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama -- the word "unorthodox" comes to mind. As does "shameful." And yet, in these post- election times, especially considering the FEC's decision not to audit Obama's $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times. Either way, Berg says that he is hopeful that the Court will "do the right thing," and ensure that "the American public is provided with the opportunity to know that the person leading the United States of America is eligible, under our Constitution, to do so." As for New Jersey firebrand and attorney Leo Donofrio, his application for an emergency stay was denied by Justice Souter, Donofrio was able to refile and resubmit it to the Justice of his choosing, and properly did so. Today, the docket for his action shows that after being put before Justice Clarence Thomas, the application will be discussed by the Court in a December 5, 2008 conference. Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg's case as well. Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction. Certainly, the proceedings moving along normally is positive with regard to publicity for Donofrio and Berg as well. Just yesterday, news of Alan Keyes' suit in California reached the Drudge Report, so the questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day. The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
This "trip" through the fairytale province of Amerika reminds me of having an expensive meal at an exclusive restaraunt only to take a healthy dump the following morning. Sitting on the shitter one is unable to note "any" difference between that dump and the one taken after eating a Big Mac. What I'm trying to say is Amerika is taking a 5 trillion dollar shit, D.C. has been taken over by the SANHEDRIN and some communist mullato from Kenya; the electorate is in a trance like moths attracted to a light that will kill them but incapable of altering the flight pattern. When the law of the land is based upon "democracy" or the "mob" rather than the guiding principles upon which it was founded, the ship of state loses its moral compass and a wild eyed drunk takes the helm.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
When the law of the land is based upon "democracy" or the "mob" rather than the guiding principles upon which it was founded, the ship of state loses its moral compass and a wild eyed drunk takes the helm. Well done.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition SILENT RUNNING Indie, our paths may never cross but our destination is exactly the same.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
This "case" has not been submitted to SCOTUS. As with Berg, a petition is filed requesting the assent of SCOTUS to consider a case. I doubt this will be granted cert. Below is a description of the case with some of the documents. The case was a request by Donofrio that "the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, for an Order granting injunctions to stay the use of current New Jersey ballots and to create new ballots." The respondent was the Secretary of State of New Jersey, not Obama. THE DONOFRIO LITIGATION re Obama To be a naturally born citizen, this is the issue. You are either "born" one or you are not, and if not, you can't be President. The 14th Amendment can make one a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen". This is the backbone of my case. Had the US legislature, and the States who ratified the 14th Amendment, sought to bestow "natural born citizen" status, then the 14th Amendment would say so, but it does not. It confers "citizen" status, and only if the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [...] The nature of the issue flows from the word, "born". The status required by Article 2, Section 1, must be present "at birth". To be a "natural born citizen" there must be nothing unnatural about your citizenship "at birth". Natural, in this context, means to be unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. Regardless of the fact that Obama came to reside in the United States, at the time of his birth another country could also claim him as its own and vice versa. That is the essence of my case as to Obama, and it was the same argument I made as to McCain who was also not eligible to be President. [...] -- Leo C. Donofrio Note the Lower Ct is listed as "Supreme Court of New Jersey." In the Superior Court, Donofrio moved "the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, for an Order granting injunctions to stay the use of current New Jersey ballots and to create new ballots." The Superior Court translated Donofrio's motion to an "Emergent Application for an Order Compelling the Secretary of State to Determine Ballot Eligibility of Candidates Pursuant to N.J.S.A.19:13-22." In the Superior Court rejection of Donofrio's application, Judge Jack Sabatino concluded with: Donofrio purports: The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices. I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court... The Superior Court slam dunked him on 10/30 and denied his motion to appeal. The NJ Supreme Court denied his application for emergent relief on 10/31. It would appear that the use of the ballots on November 4, 2008 will not be stayed.
#2. To: christine (#1)
#3. To: Horse (#2)
(Edited)
Certainly, the proceedings moving along normally is positive with regard to publicity for Donofrio and Berg as well. Just yesterday, news of Alan Keyes' suit in California reached the Drudge Report, so the questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day.
#4. To: noone222 (#3)
What I'm trying to say is Amerika is taking a 5 trillion dollar shit, D.C. has been taken over by the SANHEDRIN and some communist mullato from Kenya; the electorate is in a trance like moths attracted to a light that will kill them but incapable of altering the flight pattern.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#5. To: IndieTX (#4)
#6. To: christine (#1)
i think i've read that you believe this birth certificate issue is nonsense. what's your opinion of this news?
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
"Appellant's motion for leave to appeal the Secretary's alleged inaction is denied and his emergent application is consequently dismissed."
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-birth-certificate-donofrios-v.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest