Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donofrio Case (Certifigate): STILL PENDING according to Supreme Court
Here ^ | today | self

Posted on 12/08/2008 8:33:46 AM PST by DouglasKC

Is there still hope?

Legal minds needed.

This order list was released by the United States Supreme Court on Monday, 12/8/2008.

Near the top, in the category "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" is this:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE

The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

But here's the thing. The application for stay is denied. But the case IS pending. The document seems to be separating out a certain number of cases as "Orders in Pending Cases."

For example, right below the Donofrio case is this:

08M32 PONEK, JOHN V. FLORIDA

There is nothing there saying anything is denied. The rest of the document contains no reference to this.

Question: Are these the pending cases and does this mean that the case is still alive and the only thing denied was the "stay" to stop the electors from meeting?

Legal minds and advise needed. Please weigh in.

What does this mean? Lawyers?


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; bho2008; birth; birthcertificate; blackhelicopters; certificate; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; conspiracytheories; donofrio; endtransmission; getalife; naturalborncitizen; nothitshiitagain; obama; obamatruthfile; obsessedlosers; tinfoilhats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
Lawyers please weigh in.
1 posted on 12/08/2008 8:33:46 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

btt


2 posted on 12/08/2008 8:36:03 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I am not a lawyer, but I think it means the list was compiled before the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.


3 posted on 12/08/2008 8:37:10 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I would say wait until the day is over, it may be this way because the paperwork isn’t finished..


4 posted on 12/08/2008 8:37:24 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Donofrio is NOT the “Certifigate” case. It had nothing to do with a Birth Certificate.


5 posted on 12/08/2008 8:39:02 AM PST by TommyDale (I) (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy
I am not a lawyer, but I think it means the list was compiled before the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

Yes, but look at the document. Especially at the case under Donofrio. There is nothing to indicate the disposition of the case under Donofrios. It doesn't say it's denied. The entire document never mentions it again. The only indication is that it's pending. It's in the same category as the Donofrio case. Understand?

6 posted on 12/08/2008 8:39:43 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Please note that Donofrio case is NOT under the heading "CERTIORARI DENIED".

Didn't Donofrio file a Writ of Certiorari?

7 posted on 12/08/2008 8:42:23 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I'm not dead yet.


8 posted on 12/08/2008 8:44:23 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VigilantAmerican

ping!


9 posted on 12/08/2008 8:44:53 AM PST by jacquej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I’m not a lawyer but it is apparent here that the Court declined to hear this case. BTW, the case was “pending” before the court until this denial.


10 posted on 12/08/2008 8:45:19 AM PST by SonOfDarkSkies (DarkSkiesBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies
I’m not a lawyer but it is apparent here that the Court declined to hear this case. BTW, the case was “pending” before the court until this denial.

Donofrio asked for a stay of the electors (I believe). This was denied. But didn't he also file a Writ of Ceratori? If so, this was NOT denied.

11 posted on 12/08/2008 8:48:38 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I’ll check, but I believe the Writ of Ceratori was already denied last week.


12 posted on 12/08/2008 8:49:49 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I hear you...its a mere glimmer of hope but maybe you’re hunch is correct.


13 posted on 12/08/2008 8:55:12 AM PST by SonOfDarkSkies (DarkSkiesBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

It’s not proper to say the case was pending, what was pending was the petition for certiorari - i.e., the request that the court review the case. The reason the issue is “done” is that it is almost impossible to imagine how this can be framed (with standing, ripeness and other exclusionary doctrines satisfied) to become a proper case before the court.To those who are not lawyers or who do not follow the supreme court - the first paradox of the Supreme Court is that it maintains its power in part by refusing to take cases.


14 posted on 12/08/2008 8:55:24 AM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

It’s not proper to say the case was pending, what was pending was the petition for certiorari - i.e., the request that the court review the case. The reason the issue is “done” - is that it is almost impossible to imagine how this can be framed (with standing, ripeness and other exclusionary doctrines satisfied) to become a proper case before the court.To those who are not lawyers or who do not follow the supreme court - the first paradox of the Supreme Court is that it maintains its power in part by refusing to take cases.


15 posted on 12/08/2008 8:56:24 AM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

FROM Leo http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED - WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
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 Dec 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 Dec. 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.


16 posted on 12/08/2008 9:03:26 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I’m a law student nearing graduation and after looking things over and reading through it all, the Court is not willing to hear it and will likely not hear any cases of this type. I’m guessing their reasoning is that it is too political or they don’t buy the evidence. Since the Court shot it down, this isn’t going anywhere, it’s over and done. 3 and out.


17 posted on 12/08/2008 9:08:48 AM PST by TimTim01 (Legal Options)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TimTim01

Your analysis seems reasonable and correct to me. It will all be moot after Obama is sworn in next month anyway because the Supremes are not going to unseat a sworn in Prez and he will not be impeached on this matter either.


18 posted on 12/08/2008 9:47:59 AM PST by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Yeah, they’ll consider it after Obama has left office at the end of his term... LOL...


19 posted on 12/08/2008 10:17:48 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

We need to give this a rest, folks. Regardless of whether the case actually has merit, the Supreme Court is not going to undo an election.

Let’s drop this and get on to other things. The mainstream media never belittled Truthers and those who clung to some sort of conspiracy about Bush’s National Guard service, but they will use this issue as another excuse to paint conservatives as wacko conspiracy nuts. Don’t give the press or the mainstream media the opportunity to do this.

We need to concentrate on getting a conservative majority in congress in 2010. Worrying about where Obama is born just wastes time that could be put to better use.


20 posted on 12/08/2008 11:05:51 AM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

I can multi-task! I am WOMAN, LOL!

I still think that somewhere there is a suit with legs, (and I’m betting on the Alan Keyes suit), but that has not stopped me from writing my 3 elected RINO’s in Washington demanding that they vote against/filibuster a whole list of potential bills I disagree with!

See here for a sample letter:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142678/posts


21 posted on 12/08/2008 11:12:54 AM PST by atlbelle44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

Doesn’t look like the SCOTUS is giving this a rest either.

Wrotnowski’s case (also written partly by Donofrio) is now scheduled for conference on 12/12.

I don’t know what to think.


22 posted on 12/08/2008 12:55:12 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: atlbelle44

“and I’m betting on the Alan Keyes suit”

I also like the Keyes case.

It seems to have the best chance.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/AlanKeyesSuit.pdf

STE=Q


23 posted on 12/08/2008 1:33:48 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bronwynn

“Wrotnowski’s case (also written partly by Donofrio) is now scheduled for conference on 12/12.

I don’t know what to think.”

I think we have at least one justice (Scalia) interested in ensuring that constitutional requirements are taken seriously.
In Donofrio, the court denied the request for a stay and was not considering a writ of certiorari. In Cort’s case, they will be actually considering a writ.

Perhaps this is an overly pollyannish take on the situation, but at least some justices might not have agreed a stay was warranted given the circumstances. That is, so long as the matter is resolved before 1/20/09, the Constitution already provides straightforward remedies in the event an elected candidate is found to be disqualified. They already know from the 2000 election dispute that it is eminently feasible to hear the dispute and issue a decision within a very short time. So they may be just biding their timing waiting for the appropriate writ to accept; their conference on 12/12 will give them an opportunity to do so.

If they truly had decided that Donofrio’s dual citizenship argument was lacking on the merits, it wouldn’t make sense for them to squander further time in conference considering a case that is presenting the identical argument. Thus, the only way I can resolve this “puzzle” is to believe they merely shot down the immediate remedy sought by Donofrio—a historically unprecedented stay on electors even casting their ballots—but have yet to fully consider the merits of the dual citizenship argument.

I think the dual citizenship line of argument has at best a 25% shot at prevailing. But it would be nice if it were seriously considered, meaning actually argued before the court. If that line of attack fails, the Keyes filing still is to come, providing theoretically one last bite of the apple. That is, because it is making a completely different line of argument, the Court’s earlier shooting down of the dual citizenship argument should not affect its willingness to consider the possibility that Obama was not born in Hawaii at all.


24 posted on 12/08/2008 1:35:33 PM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Let’s drop this and get on to other things.

Like what??? Getting in line with other Republicans to beg for things from the Obama administration

The mainstream media never belittled Truthers and those who clung to some sort of conspiracy about Bush’s National Guard service

That's because he provided evidence to the contrary, something Obama is unwilling to do.

but they will use this issue as another excuse to paint conservatives as wacko conspiracy nuts.

Let them paint away. If its not this it will be something else.

Don’t give the press or the mainstream media the opportunity to do this.

I would rather be painted as a whatever than be petted like those RINO lapdogs.

We need to concentrate on getting a conservative majority in congress in 2010.

Concentrate away all you want to. No one is stopping you. No one is telling you to "drop it and get on to other things".

Worrying about where Obama is born just wastes time that could be put to better use.

We're not worrying about it. Are you??? We are just doing our conservative duty -- requesting that those conservatives who swore to uphold the Constitution do that which they swore to do, otherwise they will be a permanent minority by 2010. How are you doing with your duty???

25 posted on 12/08/2008 4:58:20 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

obumpa


26 posted on 12/08/2008 5:05:55 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I’m not a lawyer, but I said here at FR that whatever was announced today, that this issue would NOT be over. And I was right (i.e. the case from Connecticut by Cort W.).

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244


27 posted on 12/08/2008 6:10:15 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
You think the media ever wonders why not one person has ever come forward and said, “yes, I worked in the hospital in Hawaii when a mixed race child with an Islamic name was born to a white woman from the Midwest in 1961.” It's because it didn't happen in Hawaii. People would have remembered it, but no doctors, no nurses, no staff, nobody remembers anything. And unfortunately, Kenya has been purged of documents.
28 posted on 12/09/2008 5:05:46 AM PST by Rocketwolf68 (Bring back the crusades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
  Yeah, they’ll consider it after Obama has left office at the end of his term... LOL...

  Someone will finally see Obama's birth certificate post-apocalypse.
29 posted on 12/09/2008 5:17:20 AM PST by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
This order list was released by the United States Supreme Court on Monday, 12/8/2008.
Near the top, in the category "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" is this:
08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.
But here's the thing. The application for stay is denied. But the case IS pending. The document seems to be separating out a certain number of cases as "Orders in Pending Cases."
For example, right below the Donofrio case is this:
08M32 PONEK, JOHN V. FLORIDA
There is nothing there saying anything is denied. The rest of the document contains no reference to this.
Question: Are these the pending cases and does this mean that the case is still alive and the only thing denied was the "stay" to stop the electors from meeting?
Legal minds and advise needed. Please weigh in.
What does this mean? Lawyers?

I just asked a lawyer who is also a reference librarian at a university law library, and he said that your interpretation of the posting is correct: that the Supreme Court has denied Donofrio's Application for an Emergency Stay, but that their consideration of hearing the case itself is still pending.

I must admit, I was surprised. I was expecting him to say the opposite, since it seems everyone is reporting that the SCOTUS has made the decision not to hear Donofrio v. Wells.

30 posted on 12/10/2008 2:59:59 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TimTim01

Welcome to FR.


31 posted on 12/10/2008 5:07:34 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mono

Welcome to FR.


32 posted on 12/10/2008 5:08:02 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TimTim01

That’s a strange opinion.


33 posted on 12/10/2008 5:13:36 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: unspun

The parasites are adapting, Doctor!


34 posted on 12/10/2008 5:14:52 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rocketwolf68
You think the media ever wonders why not one person has ever come forward and said, “yes, I worked in the hospital in Hawaii when a mixed race child with an Islamic name was born to a white woman from the Midwest in 1961.

Don't be ridiculous.

I delivered babies for three months in Brooklyn, NY in 1974-5. That was fourteen years AFTER Obama was born. I delivered black babies to white girls, slanty-eyed babies to Puerto Ricans, pale babies to very dark mothers, and everything in between.

I remember unusual circumstances - reaching for the head and finding a foot, for example - but remember the PEOPLE? That's absurd.

Mixed race babies were very common in Hawaii in 1961, and the idea that a doc (who was still alive) or a nurse would remember THIS particular dirty little white girl is just nonsense.

35 posted on 12/10/2008 5:16:11 PM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal; DouglasKC; BP2; STARWISE; LucyT; Frantzie; Coleus; texasmama; joygrace; Anybody; All
This order list was released by the United States Supreme Court on Monday, 12/8/2008. Near the top, in the category "ORDERS IN PENDING CASES" is this:
08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied. But here's the thing. The application for stay is denied. But the case IS pending. The document seems to be separating out a certain number of cases as "Orders in Pending Cases." For example, right below the Donofrio case is this:
08M32 PONEK, JOHN V. FLORIDA
There is nothing there saying anything is denied. The rest of the document contains no reference to this. Question: Are these the pending cases and does this mean that the case is still alive and the only thing denied was the "stay" to stop the electors from meeting? Legal minds and advise needed. Please weigh in. What does this mean? Lawyers?

I just asked a lawyer who is also a reference librarian at a university law library, and he said that your interpretation of the posting is correct: that the Supreme Court has denied Donofrio's Application for an Emergency Stay, but that their consideration of hearing the case itself is still pending.

I must admit, I was surprised. I was expecting him to say the opposite, since it seems everyone is reporting that the SCOTUS has made the decision not to hear Donofrio v. Wells.

Someone please post this on Leo Donofrio's page! Refer him to this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2144944,30

I don't have access to his site from where I am (blocked, word: sex).

Also, if the right program is on PlainsRadio.com, please notify them about it. Call them. Also, post in their forum and get in their chatroom and post!

Pretty please.

Lucy T, STARWISE: please ping your peepul and let them know, eh?

36 posted on 12/10/2008 5:19:13 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: unspun

Wow this is weird. I wonder if SCOTUS will tie Leo and Cort’s cases together? I think Leo/Cort got Thomas and Scalia’s attention.


37 posted on 12/10/2008 6:02:28 PM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

No sorry. Stop pandering to what the MSM thinks. Screw them. They were 100% for Obama. This “oh well we need to think about 2010 and beyond” good luck when ACORN runs the elections. We for the Constitution now or we lose it.

I still think the Constitution means something to Scalia and Thomas polus probably Alito and Roberts. This is a Constitutional issue. It is the citzenry asking the Judicial branch to protect us from abuse by the Legislative and Executive branches. We either have a rule of law or we have chaos.


38 posted on 12/10/2008 6:08:07 PM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

You could be right, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have the “stones” to accept cert (only 4 are needed), constitutional crisis worries be d@mned. I HOPE you are right, I mean...


39 posted on 12/10/2008 6:21:19 PM PST by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: piytar

I hope I am right. I get the impression that Scalia could care less about the hounds of hell being unleashed. All he cares about is the Constitution. He has sort of mentored Thomas and they are kindered spirits. Thomas went through hell in one of the worst confirmation hearings in history. To this day, the Libs treat him terribly.

I also remember Scalia’s confirm hearing where his wife and his young children sat in the front row. My guess at that time, Congress were not so nasty because the kids were there. I respect both of them a lot.

Next we have Alito and Roberts who I also think are good men. They have been there less than Scalia and Thomas so the paper trail is shorter. I hope they are kindered spirits of the giant Scalia. We will know soon.

Roberts will have to swear in Obama so I would think he is going to give this careful consideration.


40 posted on 12/10/2008 6:32:22 PM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Ya know, I didn't even see that post from about the lawyer/reference librarian. I still can't see what's wrong with my analysis, but I figured that Donofrio would know what was what. I kind of gave up because everybody seemed to think that it was dead.

I'm not sure though.

41 posted on 12/10/2008 6:54:24 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: unspun; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; gunnyg; television is just wrong; browardchad; jcsjcm; ...

~~PING to #36

unspun: sorry, your link does NOT work.


42 posted on 12/10/2008 7:04:29 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Wow, interesting. Still waiting, reading and watching here. Surely one of these lawsuits is going to go somewhere. Thanks for the pings, STARWISE, they are appreciated.


43 posted on 12/10/2008 7:08:48 PM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I thought Leo was going to be on with Ed tonight at 9:00 Texas time? They have a music show on. What’s up?


44 posted on 12/10/2008 7:12:11 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Roberts will have to swear in Obama so I would think he is going to give this careful consideration

When he dismisses this one I'm sure he will have

45 posted on 12/10/2008 7:14:19 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TimTim01
I’m a law student nearing graduation and after looking things over and reading through it all, the Court is not willing to hear it and will likely not hear any cases of this type. I’m guessing their reasoning is that it is too political or they don’t buy the evidence. Since the Court shot it down, this isn’t going anywhere, it’s over and done. 3 and out.

Scalia could have easily denied Wrotnowski's case outright, but he did not. He could have easily denied both cases at once, Donofrio and Wronowski cases, but he did not.

Wrotnowski's case is a better written case than the one Donofrio sent to the court. Scalia thinking may be that he wanted the best of the two cases.

If Scalia wanted to send an 'unambiguous message' to Donofrio or Wrotnoski from the court, he would have done this below:

No. 07A638
Title:
Ate Kays Company, Applicant
v.
Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District
  Case Nos.: (175 EM 2007)

~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008 Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008 Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia.

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


Scalia sent an 'unambiguous message' to this lawyer on the case... A case that went nowhere, 3 and done, not even to conference.

46 posted on 12/10/2008 7:26:08 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; unspun

Thanks for the ping. I knew that Donofrio was still listed, but thought perhaps the clerks hadn’t caught up yet.

Well, I guess we’ll just put this on hold and see what happens. It does seem to me that it would be only sensible for the conservatives on SCOTUS to take several of these applications, since there appear to be at least three things that need to be considered: the fact that Obama was born (apparently) to a Kenyan father. The fact that he refuses to release his full birth certificate. And the fact that he appears to have been adopted by his stepfather and given Indonesian dual citizenship, or perhaps his parents agreed to relinquish his American citizenship in accordance with Indonesian law.

In other words, the question before the court is whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the constitutional requirement, and all of these issues appear to be relevant. But I think even constitutional lawyers find it hard to predict what the court will do.

So Donofrio is in limbo at the moment, but could be revived. Or perhaps re-introduced as amicus curiae?


47 posted on 12/10/2008 7:28:45 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: unspun
I just posted the comment & link to Post# 30 at Leo Donofrio's webpage “DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED - WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING”.

The page has 376 comments, and mine is waiting for a mod to approve it.

But the very first comment has it right (by the lawyer/librarian's take):

MrX Says:
December 8, 2008 at 11:51 am
The stay was denied, but not the writ. Says your case is still pending. Could they still be considering the writ portion? Do you need to file one with the proper heading? I know you’re out of time, but for future elections, it may be worth seeing it through.

48 posted on 12/10/2008 7:29:04 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

ping


49 posted on 12/10/2008 7:33:06 PM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; STARWISE
Should've pinged you to Post# 48.
50 posted on 12/10/2008 7:35:55 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson