Posted on 11/22/2008 8:32:29 AM PST by BP2
Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
Today, Leo Donofrio, also the Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, is separately filing an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatano.
Leo will be updating his blog with the official complaint, and I’ll update here as well…
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial
Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008″ before all nine Supreme Court Justices.
I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file - not including all relevant documents - will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.A copy of the official complaint - by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form - will be uploaded to this blog shortly.
| Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm |
|
|
| JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION. [MEDIA UPDATE:] Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case. Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public. Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale tonight at 9:00 PM EST. Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere at 11:00 PM EST as well.
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008" before all nine Supreme Court Justices. I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file - not including all relevant documents - will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.
A copy of the official complaint - by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form - will be uploaded to this blog shortly. |
Yeap this guy is little too annoying... I see his posting on every anti-0.
The party cannot change their candidate after five days before the election, so the Dems are stuck with their non-citizen candidate.
there is a Congressman in GA, his name is Broun, who spoke his mind on the election shortly afterwards. I have even had trouble getting on his e-mail newsletter list. We should contact him besides our own reps, also.
PING
All,
Leo just emailed me with his new blog site. The address is
http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com
It is not easy to reach. I used Yahoo to find it. MSN and Google couldn’t find it for me.
Spread the word!
Yay! Just checked in and have that sight tabbed. Glad to see Leo back in view. Go, Leo!
I read somewhere that there are something like 17 lawsuits right now.
Howard is named in the Berg Lawsuit as one of the defents. IMO his resignation makes it possible to plea bargain and possibly serve as a witness on the other side. Just a hunch: A felony conviction would do away with his medical license.
It has nothing to do with the party. The electors are free to vote for whomever they choose, per the Constitution. They certainly wouldn't vote for a candidate that's been declared ineligible (if or when that happens before December 15). Hillary would be the likely choice, but not a slam-dunk.
The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136602/posts
Just ignore the idiotic Bush/nuclear threat/Islamist voodoo.
“Please read the XX Amendment. Also see:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”
IF SCOTUS DQ’s Obama on the basis of a perpetration of a fraud, HIS Electors would be DQ’d. This is the “Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree” doctrine. Then, they have three options.
1. Apply the 12th Amendment - Seat Obama’s electors, but DO NOT allow them to vote for POTUS. Obama CURRENTLY leads, presumably, by 365-173. The election for POTUS would be based on ONLY 173 electoral votes.
Or, the House of Representatives would elect the President from NO MORE THAN 3 Presidential candidates who received the next most electoral votes (ONLY McCain). Nader and Barr got NO electoral votes in the general election, but MIGHT be allowed to stand, based on the popular vote. Each State delegation has one vote. Presumably, it would be McCain.
IF Biden is ruled by SCOTUS to have been eligible AND NOT DQ’d by virtue of being on Obama’s ballot, Obama’s (and Biden’s) Electors WOULD vote, presumably, 365-173 and he would be VP.
Otherwise, The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 VP candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for VP. Presumably, it would be Biden.
McCain POTUS, Biden VP.
OR:
2. Declare the election null and void and order a new one. THIS WOULD BE VERY TIME-CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE AND, THEREFORE, UNLIKELY - BUT IT WOULD BE THE MOST EQUITABLE SOLUTION.
Winners: Unknown since new candidates are also unknown at this time.
OR:
3. Declare that since Obama was DQ’d, HIS votes for POTUS would be DQ’d, and HIS Electors would be DQ’d.
You gotta remember how this works:
We vote for SLATES of Electors, so there are 538 + 538 = 1076 POSSIBLE Electors (counting ONLY DEM and GOP).
CURRENTLY, Obama leads 365 (Obama Electors) to 173 (McCain Electors). For a total of 365 + 173 = 538. Obama wins 365-173.
HOWEVER, IF Obama is DQ’d, HIS Electors are DQ’d, and McCain’s Electors replace them.
Therefore, the NEW Electors would be 173 (original McCain Electors) AND 365 (new McCain Electors). For a total of 173 + 365 = 538. McCain wins 538-0.
IF Biden is ruled by SCOTUS to have been eligible AND NOT DQ’d by virtue of being on Obama’s ballot, he would be VP. His Electoral Count would be 365-173 - using HIS (and Obama’s) original Electors..
McCain POTUS, Biden VP.
Otherwise, Biden’s Electors would ALSO be DQ’d, as Obama’s above, and Palin would presumably be VP 538-0.
McCain POTUS, Palin VP.
“electors are free to vote for whomever they choose, per the Constitution.”
Read Post # 90 ...
Please let me know what you think of Justice Souter’s ruling on the Berg case and how that might effect Leo Donofrio’s case. Thanks!
I want to know too ...so ping us both please.
Thank you. Wish that I’d thought of you a few days ago. I said if Obama is disqualified, his electors may be also. I was told that I was wrong and that they’d be released to vote for whom they wanted. I gave up.
Wow! Thanks for that link! And, yes, I will ignore the “voodoo.”
No they wouldn't be "DQ'd" if they haven't voted yet.
1. Apply the 12th Amendment - Seat Obama’s electors, but DO NOT allow them to vote for POTUS. Obama CURRENTLY leads, presumably, by 365-173. The election for POTUS would be based on ONLY 173 electoral votes.
The electors (who are usually party hacks) can vote for whomever they want, and it doesn't have to be Obama.
I never heard of Lan until last week—does it reach North.Calif? Iv’e listened to Mike Savage for 5 or 6 years and have not heard him mention anything re this. As for blogs, nothing by Malkin, Medved, even Coulter. But the word is getting out anyway, and the radio talkers & bloggers will look silly before long. Including, maybe most of all, Rush.
“Please let me know what you think of Justice Souter’s ruling on the Berg case and how that might effect Leo Donofrio’s case. Thanks!”
IF SCOTUS takes just one case and decides that NO ONE other than another POTUS candidate has standing - then EVERYONE, except Keyes (IF he gets to SCOTUS), gets tossed out.
However, I am PARTICULARLY interested in a SCOTUS case I have just found:
FEC v. Akins
Argued: Wednesday, January 14, 1998
Decision: Monday, June 1, 1998
Issues: Judicial Power, Standing to Sue, Statutory Standing
Docket: 96-1590
Citation: 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
Question:
Do voters have the proper legal standing to challenge the Federal Election Commission’s decisions regarding political committees?
Conclusion:
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that voters seeking information, to which they believe the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC’s decision not to bring an enforcement action. Because FECA seeks to address the voters’ injury, the failure to obtain relevant information, Justice Breyer concluded that the voters had prudential standing. Furthermore, because the voters’ inability to obtain information constitutes an “injury in fact,” continued Justice Breyer, the voters had standing under Article III.
I have NOT read ALL of the facts concerning the case, but I believe that there is specific language in FECA that mandates dispersal of information.
Gotta do more digging ...
“The electors (who are usually party hacks) can vote for whomever they want, and it doesn’t have to be Obama.”
The Electors meet in their States and certify their votes for POTUS and VP no later than 15 December, then the votes are sealed and transmitted to the U.S. Senate.
On 6 January, the House and the Seante, with the President of the Senate (Cheney) presiding, count the votes.
If SCOTUS DQs Obama, any votes unsealed at that time that are for Obama WOULD NOT be counted - same as “seating Electors”, but not allowing them to vote.
Sheesh ... semantics ...
BTW: Something like 24 States have “Faithless Elector” laws on the books - they provide for punishment of Electors who DO NOT vote for whom they are pledged.
SCOTUS has previously affirmed these laws as Constitutional ...
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.