This is just to name 3 cases currently pending in the US Supreme Court over Obama eligibility issues. The only reason I have chosen to publish this here is because there are, apparently, people who cannot follow directions for finding court dockets on the US Supreme Court website. Because of their ineptitude, they wish to say these cases do not exist. As usual, just because you are inept doesn't change what is, so this is only meant to document these cases for which I was able to find the information on the Supreme Court website. There may be others I have not listed. I have also not posted any that may be in federal district courts.
If you know of any other Supreme Court filings and have the docket numbers so they can be added, please advise.
Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 266
I guess that would make Biden the President?
Wrotnowski - Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Berg - Nov 3 2008 - Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Berg - Nov 18 2008 - Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Donofrio - Nov 6 2008 - Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Donofrio - Nov 14 2008 - Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Donofrio - Nov 19 2008 - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Donofrio would require a total of 4 justices to agree to consider the case.
Great idea, Rob. And GWB could help the process along by declaring marshall law based on the constitutional crisis which occurred on Nov. 19th when Clarence Thomas "distributed" the effluvium for conference. That would give the current SCOTUS time to re-write the Constitution to eliminate all the vague language; maybe they could write in something about the divine right of kings, to eliminate all this dissension every few years.
What does this line on your profile page mean, anyway? "Dave is in denial." I think they're about the most truthful 4 words I've ever seen from you here.
I'm curious as to the manner in which you believe the law has been "so mangled" -- the day(s) in court to consider these suits are at an example of "mangling?"
I didn't say that, Dave. You can't take words out of a sentence and make them what you want to make them appear to make your point. Well, I shouldn't say that because you can and you try, but it doesn't work with me. Try it with someone else.
Mark said that nothing would come of it and I said, "No, Mark, nothing will probably come of it, but when you have an issue that's important to you and you can't get justice because the law has been so mangled that it won't work anymore for you, then it will be time for you to ask yourself the same question and get the same answer."
That's exactly right. The law is being mangled when the people cannot make a substantive case because procedures are being interpreted over substance due to political motivation.l There absolutely must be a way for the people to be able to have a case against possible voter fraud be heard in the courts.
Make believe for a few minutes, (you're good at that so it shouldn't be too difficult for you) that this case has nothing to do with your Prophet. Let's say someone else were on this ticket that had defrauded this electorate and he won by a very small margin. You had donated several hundred dollars to his campaign. Now you find out you think he's a fraud. How do you plan to take this to court when there is no way for you, as a citizen, to claim damages beause you have no standing to sue?
You're talking "apples and oranges" with that question. There is for an Obamite only one One, and only one time; now. The One is anointed, and any that question him are clearly off their rocker. Indeed, even mentioning that anyone questions him, is proof of that persons malicious intent to destroy the Dream. When you introduce the concept of a mere mortal attempting to circumvent the Constitution, that is obfuscation, in the eyes of true believers.
You're a complete moron, Dave. I also don't know why, suddenly, you appear on every post and every thread on which I comment. I thought that perhaps it was because you follow John or Jerry, but they weren't here before, so that's not it.
I think you're going to be one of those people whom I just ignore because if you're going to take every sentence I declare and take words out of context so that they can suit your agenda, you can play that game elsewhere. That obscures the thread, and I won't have it here. There are plenty of other places you can make yourself look foolish, and there are plenty of other places where others will look as foolish so your comments will seem less foolish in their midst. Consider that I'm looking out for your best interests, Dave.
This is the last comment I will make to you on this site. You're now in my ignore group with Sharon WW, Bob C., and Don/Tony S. Congrats! Great group of 'intellects'!
What is important is that Obama acts as a citizen and has spent most of his life living in the United States and his mother was a U.S. citizen.
I also suggest that none of us knows for sure where we were born because we can't remember our births. We have to depend on others and documents which may have been forged. So quit fretting about it. It isn't really important at all.
Notice that I never complained about McCain being born outside the borders of the U.S. It really is unimportant.
Since when do you decide over the LAW of this country, the US Constitution, that what you SAY is important is more important than what the law states is supposed to be upheld?
Is this now the Law of Larry and the Invisible Hand that takes precedence over the Constititution?
I won't get into that. But I don't like people who blatantly KNOW they're not a citizen and therefore KNOW they're not eligible to run for the presidency. And then they post fake or forged documents trying to get around the Constitution. Now THAT kind of person does not act like any US citizen (pretend) that I want for my president.
Good point, Lera! Then again, maybe it's just the Academy Award winning acting job that counts.
My question was and still is, does that mean, for you, that the law is "mangled?"
What's your opinion of the substantive issues raised in the lawsuits (if any), John? Or is that too much trouble?
"one has to buy into every goofy suit by every nut-job lawyer in the country in order to believe in the Constitution (?) Nah."
--- not the same as ---
"if it makes people who want to have the Constitution of this country upheld and respected 'nutjobs'"
See the difference?
I'm sure that's the ONLY thing that bothers you, Joe. Tell me another whopper!
Because Joe, I don't believe the law is "mangled" when these nutty cases are heard, and are thrown out. I don't let my emotions get the best of me when I'm busy grinding an ax, and try to lash out at others who don't agree on the merits.
"there was no restitution for the people and no way for them to act in accordance with procedure to have their voices heard and to be protected by the Law which is supposed to serve them."
Someone interpreted that to be an statement equivalent to:
"you can't get justice because the law has been so mangled that it won't work anymore for you"
...which was a hypothetical embedded in a slightly longer sentence...
"No, Mark, nothing will probably come of it, but when you have an issue that's important to you and you can't get justice because the law has been so mangled that it won't work anymore for you, then it will be time for you to ask yourself the same question and get the same answer."
...which implies that experience in the present by the speaker. I.e., the law is now mangled.
"John Knight -- you are off-topic."
Oh, you think so? Tell me O keeper of the topics, what is the topic?
It does not appear to me to be the "substantive issues raised in the lawsuits", as you seem to be implying by your question to me.
I think there is a bit of substance to Donofrio, namely the meaning of "natural born citizen" and whether there is any daylight between those words in Article 2, and the wording in 14th Amendment, which lacks that phrase.
I don't think there is much to it (especially when Donofrio goes on to make up his own definitions of "natural born"), but who knows what the Supremes will do with it.
One thing this filing does is render the Obama birth certificate, or the release or non-release of it, irrelevant.
"Sure, Obama's white mother flew to Kenya to deliver Barack. That's a new one on me. The judge found that the case did not have standing because there isn't anything there. Barack Obama provided his birth certificate from Hawaii when he placed himself in nomination. He had to - that is the law. If there was anything to this birth certificate nonsense, it wouldn't have been necessary for Berg to do anything. How very sad that people continue to buy into this garbage. Obama is just as much a citizen as the rest of us."
Joe T., Oct 25, 2008, 5:57pm EDT
It doesn't bother you that anyone is trying to prove that Obama isn't the citizen you claim he is?
You don't really feel "very sad that people continue to buy into this garbage?"
So how many whoppers do we really have here?
So just another scam on the gullible.
Are you going to explain what the topic is, which you have accused me of being off of? Or perhaps rescind the accusation? Anything?
So naturally I understood the topic to be the cases regarding Obama's eligibility to be president, (and not whether anyone posting to the thread was a deluded suck-up).
After I addressed the cases specifically, someone attacked me for being against the Constitution.
When I asked for clarification on whether someone thought the law was "mangled," which has relevance to how these cases are framed in the minds of the public, I was attacked for quoting the person word for word. It's in the record.
What's happened is that you've misread the posts. I haven't accused anyone of anything untoward except for "nut-job lawyers," and if you've checked into Philip J. Berg's history, you'll at least understand how that name could be applied, even if you don't agree with me.
Just how do you know these law suits are frivolous? Is it frivolous to you if Mr. Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office he has been elected to?
Since Joe thinks that this lawsuit has no merit, Joe must think that Obama is being slandered, but he doesn't care about that because he only cares about the waste of money. OK, Joe, thanks for clarifying.
"I haven't accused anyone of anything"
That is a lie.
"John Knight -- you are off-topic."
Furthermore, you have accused me of making "ad hominem" attacks ... but it is YOU that are making as hominem attacks, both on me;
"Perhaps it's because you have NOTHING substantive to contribute to the issue. It's a transparent tactic--launch an ad hominem attack on someone who shows how vacuous the other position is.
What's your opinion of the substantive issues raised in the lawsuits (if any), John? Or is that too much trouble?"
And on Mr. Berg, at least;
"except for "nut-job lawyers," and if you've checked into Philip J. Berg's history, you'll at least understand how that name could be applied"
What you have failed to do, is demonstrate that my comment to Sue, was an attack on any but those irrationally resistant to any questioning of Mr. Obama. If you wish to "jump in front of that bullet", feel free, but pleas don't accuse me of attacking you in that case.
It appears that racism also doesn't bother Joe T. Don't say I've never helped you out, Joe.
Here's another example.
Obama was born in the USA and deserves to be treated like any other citizen. It is a thinly veiled racism that questions his citizenship. All the facts are in. There is no argument here.
Joe T., Oct 21, 2008, 6:11pm EDT
I just love being accused of putting words into people's mouths when they say something not only once, but twice, and I quote them verbatim.
Your "attack on any but those irrationally resistant to any questioning of Mr. Obama" is a diversion. That is the point you continue to attempt a diversion from. And yes, you've directly tried that on me numerous times and I've pointed out the demagoguery in the tactic. I got the message here loud and clear, just as someone else did.
The comment was not ad hominem because it pointed out that the course of the discussion was itself being diverted by ad hominem attacks. I refuse to suggest that you can't follow that, as "someone" might in a similar circumstance.
"The comment was not ad hominem because it pointed out that the course of the discussion was itself being diverted by ad hominem attacks."
Yes, I am quite familiar with the insane notion that if one first accuses someone of misconduct, then one is free to make any other accusations they wish, including those that constitute the very thing they originally accused that someone of, without possibility of sin. I have seen it done many times, and it never ceases to amaze.
You pointed out what you thought I did, and you are not God, plain and simple. If I first say you are dishonest, then am I free to be dishonest about you? If I first call you bigoted, am I then free to be bigoted toward you, on the grounds that I "pointed out" your bigotry first? Can I rightly steal from those I call thief? Kill those I call murderer? Persecute those I accuse of persecution?
Can you not comprehend the insane world of endless accusations and reprisals which would naturally follow if all took up your "guilt by accusation" mentality? I assure you, God can.
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz, Nov 28, 2008, 2:30pm EST
"Sue, You're talking "apples and oranges" with that question. There is for an Obamite only one One...."
John Knight, Nov 28, 2008, 2:41pm EST
"Obviously, what you say is true, John."
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz, Nov 28, 2008, 2:50pm EST
I had also planned to discuss that not all these suits failed due to lack of standing. I believe the Donofrio case was decided on the merits. I'll try to get around to it later. Cheers.
There is but one logic that can lead to the conclusion that speaking ill of those that cannot tolerate the questioning of Mr. Obama's integrity, is inherently wrong: That there is no possibility of rightly questioning Mr. Obama's integrity. Which is to say, the deification of Mr. Obama. Hence the term; Obamite.
The Pastor is a nutjob who has no sense of decency. This shouldn't be going on in a society as intelligent as ours - but - I suppose the ignorant have won the cultural argument. I'm hoping that now that we have a leader with intelligence and competence that there will be more respect for expertise. We get nowhere by pandering to the lowest common denominator.
You attempt this unraveling with Joe . . . and question my willingness to engage in trying to pin down Dave? . . . ; )
"It all pays the same" . . . and the field is ripe for harvest ; )
To throw out the entire ticket would disenfranchise all those who voted for that ticket and the voters were in no way at fault, assuming that some fault is found with the candidate. It strikes me strange that people hate as strongly as they do and it is clearly directed at Obama. Those who hate might like Biden better as their hatred is not directed that direction.
It is interesting though, that if the whole ticket were thrown out, then by Donofrio's standards, McCain would also be thrown out and that ticket would have to be disqualified under the same scenario. That leaves us with Nanci Pelosi for the new president in January!
Think about it, we elect the first black man to be president and wind up with the first woman!
I tried to give you an out, showing you clearly that you had said that racism, among other things, did bother you with a link and a quote where you said it did. "Obama was born in the USA and deserves to be treated like any other citizen. It is a thinly veiled racism that questions his citizenship. All the facts are in. There is no argument here."
Joe T., Oct 21, 2008, 6:11pm EDT
You came back and said, "Sue, I have an opinion about the racism that inspires these lawsuits. How is that a problem?" Joe T., Nov 28, 2008, 6:04pm EST
An hour and a half later you come back with, " Racism does bother me." Joe T., Nov 28, 2008, 7:46pm EST
Well, like I said, you're just unconscious. It's okay.
James, I can only assume that you're referring to my answer to the Colonel. I clearly told him that I am not a judge and did not have an answer to that question because no precedence has been set for such a case, but that it would be what I would think should be done if any lawsuit filed against the DNC were upheld and there were punitive ramifications from that. It was a hypothetical answer for something that won't happen anyway.
As far as that statement, those voters didn't vote for Biden for President in the first place, so I don't see how that hypothetical answer I gave would disenfranchise them anyway.
Joe, have you completely lost your mind? How on earth could YOU know whether these cases lack merit? Are you so egocentric that you actually BELIEVE your impressions are the same as FACTS in the real world? Don't you think some sort of court ought to decide these matters? Some sort of neutral observers with access to the details and evidence that the parties present?
There are those watching, I believe, that may have the capability to understand more fully, if the weaknesses and strengths of the various positions are "fleshed out" some. Whereas without that probing, they may be inclined to overlook the bizarre nature of ruling from personal preference alone. It's not like Oprah is going to tell them ; )