Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Who said I told you so? Here we go Again!
Place-mark for thread to continue to December 12th
Cort ping!
Also on Berg’s case this entry was noted:
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by respondent Bill Anderson.
Anyone know who Bill Anderson is and why would he file an amicus brief with this case?
Is this about the birth certificate. Hard to keep up with all the goings on.
| No. 08A469 | ||||
| Title: |
|
|||
| Docketed: | ||||
| Lower Ct: | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Case Nos.: | (SC 18264) |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Nov 25 2008 | Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. |
| Nov 26 2008 | Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. |
| Nov 29 2008 | Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. |
| Dec 8 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. |
| Dec 8 2008 | Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia. |
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioner: | ||
| Cort Wrotnowski | 1057 North Street | (202) 862-8554 |
| Greenwich, CT 06831 | ||
| Party name: Cort Wrotnowski | ||
| Attorneys for Respondent: | ||
| Richard Blumenthal | Attorney General | (860) 808-5316 |
| Office of the Attorney General | ||
| 55 Elm Street | ||
| P.O. Box 120 | ||
| Hartford, CT 06141-0120 | ||
| Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State | ||
Cort’s case is very similar to Donofrio’s in challenging Obama’s natural-born citizenship eligibility. Just that it is stronger and better prepared.
Thanks
why is it stronger?
I just asked the mods to put this in the news section instead of Chat since it’s big news here and since the media, et al are gloating that the issue has ended.
Preferably in Breaking News.
Yoo Hoo!
Paging Mr Sroctum Expert
It looks like Donofrio and you were spot on about this. :-)
According to Leo’s blog:
“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 Nov. 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 Nov. 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.”
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
Thanks, Veleeeta.
Ping again. Same case, different thread.
[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]
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 Nov. 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 Nov. 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.
PS: please apply "obamatruthfile" to all these threads.
Cool.
Strategy of Supreme Court — take case for review, and deny without comment — end of story... LOL...
Haven’t you seen the pattern yet?
Yes.
The fact Thomas and Scalia have distributed it speaks well for the merits. Otherwise they would have been round filing them as fast as they came in.
That argument makes no sense at all.
Donut’s case is garbage and had no chance. Others in the pipeline may actually have a chance to get to the issue since they do not have absurdity larded upon ridiculousness as does Donuts whom I believe is actually working for Obama.
Why else would on file a case “against” him which contains an easily shot down claim regarding Obama’s father’s citizenship overriding American law on this matter AND argues that McCain is ineligible.
Is this the one that was sent to the anthrax lab?
Scalia has just stomp on Obama, the Main Stream Media, and other naysayers d%&*s after the SCOTUS denied Donofrio case. He took the Hot Air and deflated those Green Footballs coming out of their heads.
Hugh and Series! Atta boy, Antoni!
Well, maybe one of these suits re Obama and the “natural born Citizen” clause will see the light of day with the SCOTUS.
Link?
This is an indication that the Donofrio conference netted 3 votes. I doubt Justice Scalia would have referred it if the first case had gotten only 1 or 2 votes.
IMO.
Even if they accept it Dec. 12, there certainly won’t be any headway by Dec. 15. The electors’ votes will be cast for Obama and Biden, and that means Biden would be sworn in as president if Barack Obama were found unqualified, yes?
‘Is this the one that was sent to the anthrax lab?’
Cort’s original filing went to the anthrax lab, but then he drove down to DC himself to deliver another copy.
I would like to thank Leo Donofrio for his yeoman work, but whoever put up post # 19 on this thread has an obvious spelling problem with the word “Court.”
why is it stronger?
***
I read Wrotnowski’s brief earlier today - among other things, he is claiming judicial error at BOTH the Connecticut Superior Court AND the Connecticut Supreme Court ...
They denied his application because they said he had no standing under Connecticut General Statutes Section 9-323 ...
Trouble is, he DID NOT file his application under that statute ...
SCOTUS MIGHT have to kick this back to the Connecticut courts ...
Yo Hoo!
I was just going to say that Donofrio must have gotten at least two votes, Thomas and Scalia, but probably your guess of three may be likelier.
It takes 4 votes to put it on the docket. I wonder which of the conservatives voted against Donofrio?
Aside from the fact that ignoring this issue is ignoring the Constitution, I hope SCOTUS understands that this issue is not going to go away, and if they refuse to act there will be bad feelings, and perhaps criminal revelations, during the next four years. The clinton machine couldn’t stop all the leaks, and I doubt whether the Obama machine will, either.
No such file (give_legacy_article) FR has taking off all of good stuff, WHY IS FR doing this ?
The more time goes on today knowing LDonofrio’s cause was denied without comment, the sicker I feel.
I think I’m going to have to write to the SCOTUS. This issue needs resolution, once and for all.
Pray for America.
I would like to thank Leo Donofrio for his yeoman work, but whoever put up post # 19 on this thread has an obvious spelling problem with the word “Court.”
***
Cort is Wrotnowski’s first name ...
I was just going to say that Donofrio must have gotten at least two votes, Thomas and Scalia, but probably your guess of three may be likelier.
- - -
Donofrio didn’t get any votes. When a Justice dissents from an order, it shows up on the Order List. (There were two such orders in the list today - Stevens dissented).
Donofrio’s order shows no dissent. Thus, there was no vote for granting the application or treating the application as a writ.
um...I thought he got the Zot...hee hee
Thanks. Odd. An alternative explanation is that Scalia spoke up and said he’d rather look at the other case becaue he thought it was stronger.
Otherwise, why would Thomas bring it forward, and then not vote for it?
I suppose the question is naive. SCOTUS does what it pleases, no doubt.
ping
Did it get missing when the servers crashed?
I was surmising on the SCOTUS rejection thread that Scalia and Thomas may have gotten together and decided to take the Wrotnowski case instead because Donofrio said it had less baggage.
Aw man, they typo’d his area code - 202 should be 203.
I think that it and its thread got Zotted.
In another thread I was all over him re his posting date of today.
Then he did his Move on Thesis Thread and apparently got Zotted.
IMO, the issue is not ripe until AFTER the Electoral College votes on Dec 15. I get that from the specific wording in the 20th Amendment, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”. The ‘winner’ isn’t President elect until the EC votes.
If that’s true, then maybe Scalia was the No vote. IMO, he’s the the top Constitutional scholar on the Court. If the USSC were to rule before that, THEN we’d have a real Constitutional crisis, because we’d have no President after 1/19/09, and no proscribed way to get one. Too many electors are bound by State law to vote for Obama, who would be ineligible.
IMO. Add $4.75 to that, and you might get a Cappuccino at Starbucks or some such place. ;-)
Many thanks for the update, LucyT
Save the Constitution Ping.
ha ha ha...wish I could have seen the thread, i xcould use a good laugh.
Since the MSM is finally paying attention to the Supreme Court, this should be banner news shortly......
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.