The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:
|
08A469
|
WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
|
|
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
|
|
|
to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
|
|
Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.
Electoral College Questions and Answers
Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors
This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:
The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:
- Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
born citizen. - Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for. - Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
the states ignoring this?
I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.
Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Here is the heart of the complaint
“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level. It neither authorizes nor prohibits. In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution. When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level. The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words. Hers is a “sin of omission” argument. Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.
There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of State. Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.
The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day. She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy. Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections. Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Citizen Wells comment
“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio
“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.
Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”
“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”
“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”
December 2, 2008
Leo Donofrio
“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM. Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM. Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.
Citizen WElls 
Tragic! Truth will prevail and I will not lose heart. He’s not in yet!
SCOTUS vote was unanimous!! 9 -0, obviously showing the country that these are NOT meritorious. NONE of them are going anywhere.
What is going on with the hightest court system in the United States?
Have they been bribed or payed off?
It’s strange that they haven’t updated the docket yet: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
Also, check this link:
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=08a469&x=16&y=17
The last time the docket was updated/viewed was on the December 14th (yesterday).
SCOTUS has allowed the election from the people’s participation to the official election without comment, or prejudice.
What this means is that all commentary concerning the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ prior to December 15, 2008, is acceptable as written to this Supreme Court. Nothing has changed at all on that front.
The specific time for SCOTUS to participate in the official election process is after January 8 at Midnight, when the world know what Congress has done, and any lawsuits will have to come from a member of Congress.
So, it’s time to focus on CONGRESS. They will count the votes of the Electoral College. Dick Cheney will chair (he’s President of the Senate).
Congress must be convinced that the following must be done:
1. They cannot count the votes for someone who is a “dual or multiple citizen” under their own law as codified by the Code of Federal Regulations by the Department of State, under FAM 7 (Consular Services). — Remember: Barack Obama, Sr. was in this country on a temporary student visa issued by the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, so he was under the supervision of the British embassy in Washington, D.C. . I don’t think anyone in Congress is aware of this fact, but it’s accurate history.
In other words, he had no intention of taking up permanent U.S. residency or apply for naturalized citizen, EVER!
2. They cannot vote for a first generation Commander-in-Chief, based on the debate in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which records are preserved under the supervision of Congress in the Library of Congress.
————————-
This is the syllogism:
If lawless Congress, then lawless Presidency. If lawless Presidency, then lawless citizens.
A lawless citizens pay no taxes (proof: Alphonse Capone).
Not that strange or uncommon John.
Citizen Wells, Have you seen this video from Obama debate with McCain? He states on it that his father is from Kenya! Someone needs to save this on their website before it is gone!
Thanks for all you do.
I just thought that, since it’s listed in “pending cases” and they haven’t updated the docket yet, there would still be a chance.
The application for a stay in Lightfoot v. Bowen, #08A524 has been denied by Justice Kennedy. Order will issue later today or perhaps tomorrow.
-Lawdawg
order from SCOTUS
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Just found this on lucianne.com. George Soros’ son Jonathan want to end the Electoral College.
Ms. Helga
Ell,
It would have never made it to conference if there was no merit. My guess is that their hands are tied until after Congress does their job Jan 8.
I bet the scumbags do.
I tried to tell you all that when it didn’t get voted out Friday, it meant it was denied. All of these cases are DOA and the court won’t grant a stay because they have NO CHANCE on the merits. That’s the way stays work. It’s time to move on and start working over the next 4 years to help President-elect Obama pull this country’s economy out of the ditch our current poor excuse of a President put us in. That’s what Hillary will be doing and that’s what I’ll be doing too.
Battles do not win the war. There are more cases and more efforts going forward. The Washington case, even though it comes late, will mean that Obamas team will have to prove he is legal. What evidence will they show? How will they prove NBC?
Then there is the Keyes case. It will go to court to.
We just need to make sure that the Lawyers in these cases have all the facts that have been dug up.
And of course we need to write to every defender of the constitution there is in Congress, don’t laugh we only need two, and get them to stand up for us.
Don’t forget Alan Keyes is holding a ralley today at noon in Sacramento’s State Capitol. Bring your Birth Certificate, must be a valid BC. The more the better. Check Keyes web site for more details.
“It would have never made it to conference if there was no merit. ”
GOT THAT WRONG!
Well said Jerome.
Watch the EC workings today. I have some good intel that says some of the electors are questioning what to do with this crisis and have consulted legal advice. Doesn’t sound to me like these concerned electors will vote blindly……….
TURN ON C-SPAN NOW- Tjhey are covering the Electoral College votes live of “ILL-A-NOISE”
Ms Helga
With no precedents and tradition, misinformation and directives coming
from political party pledges, I am not certain that most legal advice
would be on solid ground.
Right Rich…….the Supreme Court justices have nothing better to do with their time than conference cases they KNOW they have no chance of hearing.
I would like to add that party pledges (fundamentally contracts) would either be
unconstitutional or void in regard to dictating that an Elector must vote for an ineligible candidate.
I am smiling. I am laughing. I am gleeful.
Lauren Beth Gash is speaking (IL).
Is she on drugs and/or has consumed too much Kool Aid?
Citizen Wells,
If the State Law gives the general electorate a means to participate in the apportionment of the State’s Electoral Votes, then it is nonsensical to hold that it is constitutional to offer them a bogus ballot, or to admit ineligible candidates, because then their participation becomes without effect, and the state allows its own electoral votes to be apportioned according to an unjust proceedure, which is more governed by party politics that democratic rule.
Thus in allowing the States to engage in such negligence and fraud, the Supreme Court is giving the green light to chaos and tyranny.
The request for a stay in each case was never about preventing the National Election. The bogus candidates effectively nulified the validity of the national election. The Court therefore could well have nixed the apportionmend on the basis of fraudulent candiddates, because the apportionment would never have been as it is, if other candidates were on the ballots, and then it could have defined NBC. Thus Congree would have be left with no other constitutional option but to order a new national election and appoint pro-tem Pres and VP.
The argumen that SCOTUS could not act now, is therefore, unworthy of merit.
Shannon: You are playing to a fault. If Obama weren’t a lying incompetent, he might get a pass on the citizenship thing. But it’s all part of his big picture and everywhere we can put up a screenshot of his deceit we will until his truth is known.
The difference between success and failure in dethroning Obama will be perseverance…ours.
Question Citizen Wells, What if any measures are in place to remove a Supreme Court Judge? I there are any resources in the above question, it may be the right time to start action on that. Just wondering?
The Supreme Court Justices have just stabbed the Constitutuon. It is dead. We have no laws now, and no rights.
God help us.
Pingback: “Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: SCOTUS Denies Application for Stay/Injunction” « Rosettasister’s Weblog
I will give my opinion soon, Joy.
In my experience, when a court is not specific (which they must be when they render a decision), and simply leave the status quo (which is what happened here), the benefits are often greater than you might imagine.
Leo’s case and Cort’s case and Orly’s case were basically orders to the SOS of NJ and CT and CA to do their job. They didn’t, so the Electors today are voting on two bogus candidates. However, in the future, no SOS in any state is likely to get a pass on this, so the dog has had his bite — but no seconds. So, really, this is a win for good government.
With respect to the “bogus” candidates: there are two challenges remaining — Keyes and Berg.
Berg is a fraud case, and should have gone to PA court, but that option is still open to him.
Keyes is a bonafide challenger to both Obama and McCain, who is only challenging the winner, Obama. Since Keyes challenge is meaningful to everyone who has ever run for office, including every Member of Congress, I have a gut feeling that this one will proceed to SCOTUS.
Why? Because candidates from both sides of the aisle and from every party have a dog in this fight!
So much for “We the People”.
It’s time to get ALL 9 JUSTICES off the bench.
Why does anyone take Alan Keyes seriously? Pretty much, you know that if you are standing on the same side as Alan Keyes in anything, your side is about to take a Big L. That IL Senate debacle was a disgrace.
For sure this means the SCOTUS has denied the petition to hold up the electoral college vote. not sure if this means the court will not hear the case — await further research. Do your journalists know the answer, Joseph? Something about the “Writ” (is that the word)?
Oops – Errata, please drop “, Joseph” in prior posting.
Unfortunately, there is nothing independent or nonpartisan about electors.
They are political party hacks, and will vote however their respective political party tells them to vote.
As Bob notes, any challenge now will need to come from Congress, as they are the ones who decide the next president once the Electoral College meets and certifies.
Bob: In your experience you’ve been a loser, trouble maker and dead man. Shut the fuck up already. You’re about to be wiped out. Keep on talking and you’ll be first in line.
I swear to ever loving god that you traitors will end up dead.
Bob and all.
I approved JS last comment to give you a glimpse of some of the core
support for Obama and the type of life forms we are dealing with.
RAD,
I have successfully downloaded the youtube video you linked .
Sandy …
“It would have never made it to conference if there was no merit. My guess is that their hands are tied until after Congress does their job Jan 8.
”
uh… no the reason it made it to conference is BECUASE it had no merit. If Scalia thought it had merit, he would have simply granted the requested stay. He submitted it to the Conference to prevent it from being resubmitted to a third, fourth, fifth, sixth… etc..
Joy, why are you happy and gleeful?
New supreme court Justices announced;
Colt
Smith
Wesson
Browning
Glock
Winchester
Remington
Mossberg
Berretta
Court is now in session
Citizen Wells,
Thank you for sharing JS, as most here already know, many boards do not block as much as they should and the opposition is some of the vilest participants I have ever witnessed.
Thank You for your Patriotic Stance, we stand with you along with millions of other willing Americans to Protect Our Constitution…we remain stoic and resolute without such pathetic antics…
Pingback: Wrotnowski DENIED @ SCOTUS « Mcnorman’s Weblog
Can you see ANY circustance which will permit the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admininster oath of office on Inauguration Day
if/when there are doubts outstanding re the candidate’s citizenship????
We need to focus all our energy, there are a number of efforts going on…can’t we get behind ONE and make something happen? All the webmasters and the leaders of these efforts need to consolidate and link us to one goal that is achievable. Can’t we make a lawsuit so huge…like a class action lawsuit…that will have to be heard?
Get those Mesothelioma attorneys working for us…
did the court make any statement?
I think the article that I read at WND is true, that liberalism is a mental illness, especially coming from potty mouth above threatening someone.
Hey, JS, potty mouth, do you also eat food with that mouth? If so, you’d better figure out some other way to eat.
KC
JS —
Add to that list “legally vindicated, survivor, shrewd, knowledgeable, faithful, observant, faithful, likeable, bible-thumper (read both in Hebrew and Greek), retired real estate broker, homebuilder, school administrator, nursing home administrator, world traveler, historian and scholar fluent in 14 languages, translator, and you’ll just about have it.”
Welcome to America!
Whoops, that’s *me* above. The software hicupped?
Kim, the huge lawsuit is an idea, class action. Maybe massive one at that!
Don’t you guys get it already?? This is out of our hands…. here on earth. This is much bigger than us, than SCOTUS, than Congress, etc. This is the beginning of the end of times. It is written and it is in His hands. Read the Left Behind Series by Tim LeHay and Jenkins. Even though those books are fiction, it follows the unfolding of what the Apostle John wrote in Revelations. My advice is to “get centered, get straight with your faith” the Good Guys win in the end. I can’t tell you if BO is the actual Antichrist or a lesser one, but Evil he is for sure. All that is happening is frighteningly similar to how it is written to happen. Pray with your children tonight. Find peace in your faith!
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
I think the citizenship question should be laid to rest. The SCOTUS, the Electoral College, and most of the American public realize at birth Obama had dual citizenship. This is not a violation of the Constitution. Natural born citizen is not defined by the Constitution in such a way that would invalidate Obama, who was born in the U.S. citizen, from being eligible. Obama never lived in the UK, never lived in Kenya, and was born in the U.S. It seems like a pretty straight forward, and now dead issue to me.
Ron Paul is my president. Obama is a fraud and a lier. The Supreme court is aiding him in his lies. There is a huge public outcry, and we are being ignored. We the people have fell victom to this unjust system. This is a problem very easily solved, that is if Obama was a natral-born, but he is not. So the NWO will protect him with”reasons of national security” is why we cant know his school records or birth records. Obama promised transparency of government. He’s already not living up to his claims.
I have lost all faith in our government.If the SCOTUS as the right to just wipe out truth without a reason,or some person or persons or orginazation is behind the overthrow of government,what are the people to do? Who is in charge of the SCOTUS? who makes sure that they abide by our laws? I am starting to believe that we have been overthrown already,and that we are sheep going to the slaughter.Some one has to lead,and to organize and keep us alive.or are we just to let this this happen without a fight. I for one will not! I am ready to defend my family,my friends and any one life ,
that is being affected ,if may be the case. If the SCOTUS has taken the place of GOD in our world, then it is time to get rid of the SCOTUS.
The idea that Mr. Obama has received the majority of citizen’s votes and is therefore the popularly elected potus is not valid. The question that should be entertained is: How many voters would have voted for him if they had known he was ineligable, would sequester his personal data like application for two universities, the country of his choice for his passport, that his license to practice law was withdrawn because of his lying.
Obama would not the choice of USA constitution followers if they had known who Obama was. Our problem now is to ignore the argument that he would not have gotten this far if was not elegiable. The fact is he has gotten this far and is a fraud who has put the US citizens to great stress by his disregared for US laws.
The system can still expose him. We have a few more steps to go before he is seated as potus. However, even if he is swarn in he will just compound his status as a treasonous sham.
We will win eventually and Obama will end up in prison. He will not be able to govern when he attempts to give orders as a legal potus.