Posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:51 PM PST by virgin
ANOTHER COMMENT:
I arrived at SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM. Went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Suoter’s desk as was required by Rule 22(1):
“1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.” (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Bickle agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Suoter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.
“Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/22.html
The next day, I received no message. It’s important that the disposition be delivered by speedy means because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).
I went back to Scotus on Election Day, but was told Mr. Bickle wasn’t available to speak with me. He also was not picking up his phone.
On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickle and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Suoter because Mr. Bickle didn’t think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. Mr. Bickle told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari. And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :
- I followed the Court Rules perfectly
- we spoke all about this on Monday and he agreed with my interpretation of the rules then
- my case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ
- and the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary
All the while speaking to Mr. Bickle, I stayed calm and gentle while the anger was seething inside of me hoping he would Docket it, even at this late stage so I would have something to show people when I finally went public.
It’s not the Clerk’s job job to play Judge. His job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickle basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own.
After explaining Bush v. Gore to him, where the Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case, but he still tried to persuade me to drop it anyway stating, “Do you want to redo the election?”
[See Bush v. Gore, page 1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]
I told him that if Obama were found to be disqualified, there would be no new election, but rather the electors would vote for somebody else, another Democrat. He kept trying to convince me to let it go stating that, “Justice Souter will just deny it and so will Justice Thomas”, but I wouldn’t let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.
The next day, I checked back and the case had finally been docketed, but in a completely incorrect manner. Bickle Docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my screenshot of the original Docket):
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Three glaring errors:
- The case was filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th
- My application was for a “Stay” not an “injunction”. Filing for an injunction does NOT get you expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.
- I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air.
I got on the phone and left three VERY loud and very direct messages to the effect of, “FIX my docket or IM going to bring allege criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the SCOTUS Clerk’s office.” I told him that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I had kept solid phone records, and that I my pleadings were stamped Nov 3rd.
One hour later, Mr. Bickle had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also listed it finally as a “Stay” application NOT an injunction. But whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Suoter had ALREADY denied the application...ON NOV 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket, listed no disposition.
Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears now:
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari,
submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
None of this makes any sense.
Furthermore, the reference to a “pending” Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the level of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial was “without prejudice”. If I were also in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., then the denial might not be considered “with prejudice” and in that case, Mr. Bickle might once again decide not to pass on the paperwork to Justice Thomas.
Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a Full Petition, so the Docket is STILL not correct as I intend to resubmit the Stay application this week.
And if you knew what happened to this case in the NJ Appellate Division, then you’d be just as worried as I am now that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court might not ever see this case unless they actually hear about it outside of the Court first. People have taken sides despite the law and despite the Courts role as allegedly fair arbiters.
If the Court Rules had been followed to the letter of the law, as we should expect of the highest court in the land, then this is how things should have gone down: Since I put the case properly before the Supreme Court a day before the election, it should have been “promptly” given to Justice Suoter who should have granted or denied it right away, and then I should have been informed by “speedy means” of the disposition. If it was denied, then I was entitled to a piece of paper saying so, and then I would have been able to get a supplemental letter to Justice Thomas along with 10 copies of the Stay Application to the whole Court.
This case was stopped. Why? I don’t have enough information to say who was behind it and why, but I know for a fact the case was not handled correctly. And I know that the law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency.
I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well, and I I’m not backing down. I need people to help spread the word about this case so that it has a chance of getting to Justice Clarence Thomas’s desk and to the rest of the Court.
The Supreme Court rules are clear. Under Rule 22(6), I was entitled to be informed of the disposition of my case by “appropriately speedy means”. Having submitted it on Monday, I heard NOTHING from Mr. Bickle by Thursday. But he, a lousy Clerk, disposed of the case when he got it back on Monday, but refused to inform me. Why didn’t he inform me by “speedy means” that the case was not passed on to Justice Suoter?
This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business.
And the citizens of this country should be angry about that.
Leo Donofrio
I don’t know but all I heard during the election was, the people vote for the president not the vice president.
No. The electors whould have to choose from those remaining cansidates FOR PRESIDENT, inother words, McCain and the 3rd party candidates. The vote for Prez and the vote for VP are separate votes in the Electoral College. So it could end up McCain/Biden or maybe Nader/Biden. Or because most electors are not free to vote for anyone other than the one they are pledged to, it might be thrown into the House of Representatives, due to the EC being unable to find a majority, with Obama's electors diaqualified.
All those words, and you don’t know the difference between
naturalized (has gone through the bestowing of citizenship upon the foreign born process)
and natural born (first breath inhaled on American soil)
BTW, being born in the Panama Canal zone, during its American ownership, in an American hospital, to an American sailor and his American wife, while the sailor was on assignment, IS natural born, just in case you are daft enough to need further explanation.
Is there more?
This one doesn’t sound like it will go anywhere. McCain’s case was settled in 1905; no issue at all.
Obama’s case is total non-citizenship.
All Obama has to do is show his birth certificate and we'll all look like fools. Unless... he's not eligible or he's not African. Either way, he is exposed as a fraud.
Amen! Let’s fight! This is OUR country.
Not BO’s country. Hell, he doesn’t have any loyalty to the United States.
He will rip this beautiful country to shreds if we let him.
We will not lay down and roll over and play dead and let him “Rule” us.
BO is OUR servant. We are not his servants.
This guy is an evil megalomaniac and needs to be stopped.
The Jonah Project: Pray that this country will repent of its evil ways and return to the Lord. Pray that God will spare us from destruction.
Bookmarked.
Yeah. This could all be cleared up within 24 hours. What's the problem? I'd show mine.
bookmarking this thread...need to read it all...but my eyes are popping out of my head!
Dear Senator Obama, show us your birth certificate or I and other Americans will assume, and quite correctly, that you have something to hide!
It certainly is starting to look that way.
The Left is destroying our Republic. If we can't trust the Supreme Court or the President (or, Congress for that matter) we are no longer a nation. States need to begin brushing up on succession law. If this stands we need to start thinking about dumping the Federal government and returning to constitutional protection.
IF the law doesn't apply to them, then why do IRS rules and statutes apply to us?
I don’t know what you are referring to. I just copied the comments off the article on the site. Very interesting.
http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php?topic=286.0
Here's the problem folks... we are surrounded by weak minds. It would not be good for the nation! No... lets just sh*t all over the Constitution. THAT would be good for the nation. STFU!
You bet!
No taxation without representation. A non citizen does not represent American citizens. In this case, Obomas would be representing Kenya.
There are 57 Islamic states. I believe that is what the Anointed One had in mind..
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.