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?
btt
I am not a lawyer, but I think it means the list was compiled before the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.
I would say wait until the day is over, it may be this way because the paperwork isn’t finished..
Donofrio is NOT the “Certifigate” case. It had nothing to do with a Birth Certificate.
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?
Didn't Donofrio file a Writ of Certiorari?
ping!
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.
I’ll check, but I believe the Writ of Ceratori was already denied last week.
I hear you...its a mere glimmer of hope but maybe you’re hunch is correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, they’ll consider it after Obama has left office at the end of his term... LOL...
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.
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.