Donofrio Case (Certifigate): STILL PENDING according to Supreme Court

Here ^ | today | self

[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?

[atlbelle44]

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

[Bronwynn]

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.

[STE=Q]

“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

[DrC]

“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.

[Uncle Chip]

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???

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[real_patriotic_american]

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

[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.” 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.

[Maurice Tift]

  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.

[Dajjal]

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.

[unspun]

Welcome to FR.

[unspun]

Welcome to FR.

[bvw]

That’s a strange opinion.

[bvw]

The parasites are adapting, Doctor!

[Jim Noble]

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.

[unspun]

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?

[Frantzie]

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.

[Frantzie]

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.

[piytar]

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...

[Frantzie]

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.