Category Archives: McCain Obama

Leo Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Donofrio v. Wells, Update, December 2, 2008, Justice Clarence Thomas, all 9 Supreme Court Justices, Conference, Friday, December 5, Rule of Four

Here is an update on the Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Donofrio v. Wells, that is before the US Supreme Court:
“Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a Conference this Friday, December 5 to consider granting Certiorari. If this is granted, then the “Rule of Four” concept will then be in play.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski’s case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)):”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1317

Jeff Katz fired, WBT talk radio fires Katz, Tara Servatius replaces, December 1, 2008, Citizen Wells seeks truth about dismissal

Jeff Katz, who had a talk radio show in the afternoon after Rush Limbaugh on WBT radio in Charlotte NC, was fired on Monday, December 1, 2008. Jeff Katz was considered controversial by some, but he was one of the few locally telling the truth about Barack Obama, and trying to inform the citizens of the Charlotte area. I listened to Jeff Katz when I was able. He was a beacon of truth in a morass of lies and bias such as that emanating from the extremely biased Charlotte Observer. Many of the callers to Jeff’s show would be obnoxious or blind followers of Obama. Katz handled them as best as could be reasonably expected. Of course no one in this day and age wants the truth and no one should question the “messiah”, Obama.

Citizen Wells intends to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth about the Jeff Katz dismissal.

Stay tuned.

Jeff Katz, God bless you for the job you did. The listeners of WBT talk radio owe you a debt of gratitude.

Leo Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court, December 5, 2008, SCOTUS, Donofrio and Wrotnowski interview, Cort Wrotnowski delayed 7 days, Anthrax facility, Update December 1, 2008, ** Breaking News **

Leo Donofrio has just announced that the Cort Wrotnowski case in the US Supreme Court has been delayed
7 days due to his renewed application being sent to an Anthrax Facility. Donofrio is outraged at this
delay tactic and behind the scenes chicanery at the Supreme Court.

Leo Donofrio’s website:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

We the People Foundation, Chicago Tribune, Monday, December 1, 2008, Letter to Obama, formal Petition for a Redress, original birth certificate, forensic scientists, December 8, 2008, Washington, D.C. press conference

We the People Foundation has published a letter in the Chicago Tribune today, Monday, December 1, 2008
and will publish another on December 8, 2008. Here is an exerpt from the We the People Foundation site:
“Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune
on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers. 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.”

Here is the text of the Letter:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“An Open Letter

to Barack Obama:

Are you a Natural Born

Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally eligible to

hold the Office of President?

We The People Foundation

For Constitutional Education, Inc.

http://www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org

2458 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY 12804

info@GiveMeLiberty.org

December 1, 2008

Mr. Barack Obama

Barack Obama Transition Office

Kluczynski Federal Building

230 So. Dearborn St.

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Obama:

Representing thousands of responsible American citizens who have also

taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America,

I am duty bound to call on you to remedy an apparent violation of the

Constitution.

Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding

the Office of President by the ?natural born citizen? clause of the U.S.

Constitution. For instance:

 

 

You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughlydiscredited,

 

 

computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a formthat lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed

Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of

attending physician and age of mother.

 

 

Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were bornin Hawaii.

 

 

Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.

 

 

Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birthin Kenya.

 

 

U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child bornin Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19

years of age.

 

 

In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S.citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming

a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence of your eligibility when

challenged to do so in a number of recent lawsuits. Instead, you have

been successful in having judges declare that they are powerless to order

you to prove your eligibility to assume the Office of President.

Incredibly, the judge in Hawaii actually said it would be an invasion of

your privacy for him to order access to your original birth certificate in

order to prove your eligibility to hold the Office of President.

Before you can legitimately exercise any of the powers of the President

you must meet all the criteria for eligibility established by the Constitution.

You are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence.

Should you assume the office as anyone but a

 

 

bona fide natural borncitizen of the United States who has not relinquished that citizenship, you

would be inviting a national crisis that would undermine the domestic

peace and stability of the Nation. For example:

 

 

You would always be viewed by many Americans as aposeur – a

 

 

usurper .

 

 

As a usurper , you would be unable to take the required ?Oath orAffirmation? on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or

false swearing, for being ineligible you cannot faithfully execute the

Office of the President of the United States.

 

 

You would be entitled to no allegiance, obedience or support fromthe People.

 

 

The Armed Forces would be under no legal obligation to remainobedient to you.

 

 

No civilian in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any ofyour proclamations, Executive Orders or directives, as such orders

would be legally void.

 

 

Your appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court would be void.

 

 

Congress would not be able to pass any needed legislation becauseit would not be able to acquire the signature of a

 

 

bona fide President.

 

 

Congress would be unable to remove you, a usurper , from the Officeof the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos

including a potential for armed conflicts within the General

Government or among the States and the People to effect the

removal of such a

 

 

usurper .In consideration of the escalating constitutional crisis brought on by the

total lack of evidence needed to conclusively establish your eligibility,

I am compelled to serve you with this First Amendment Petition for a

Redress of this violation of the Constitution.

With all due respect, I ask that you immediately direct the appropriate

Hawaiian officials to allow access to the vault copy of your birth

certificate by our forensic scientists on Friday, Saturday and Sunday,

December 5, 6 and 7, 2008.

In addition, I ask that you deliver the following documentary evidence to

the National Press Club in Washington DC by 10 am on December 8, 2008,

marked for my attention:

 

 

A certified copy of your original, signed ?vault? birth certificate.

 

 

Certified copies of your reissued and sealed birth certificates in thenames Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack

Dunham and Barry Dunham.

 

 

A certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.

 

 

A certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.

 

 

Certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College,Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

 

 

Certified copies of any legal documents changing your name.Each member of the Electoral College, who is committed to casting a vote

on December 15, 2008, has a constitutional duty to make certain you are

a natural-born citizen. As of today, there is no evidence in the public

record (nor have you provided any) that defeats the claim that you are

barred by law from assuming the Office of President because you fail the

Constitution?s eligibility requirements.

All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary

evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility,

they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.

?

 

 

In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiledif it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent,

the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people

by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a

lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become

a law unto himself; it invites anarchy

 

 

.? Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Schulz

Chairman”

Read the formatted letter here:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf

 

 

 

 

Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Natural Born Citizen, Update December 1, 2008, Obama not natural born citizen, Donofrio new site on WordPress, naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, JUSTICE SCALIA, WROTNOWSKI V. CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE

Leo Donofrio has moved his website from Google’s blogger account to WordPress. Donofrio has provided an
update today, Monday, December 1, 2008 on his NJ lawsuit appeal and Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut
Secretary of State lawsuit, both before the US Supreme Court.

“Today we are watching for the SCOTUS AUTOMATED Docket to be updated with two important developments, one in Cort’s case and one in mine.

We hope the docket will reflect that Cort Wrotnowski has renewed his application to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of this morning.  Cort’s application for an emergency stay and/or injunction was denied by the Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on November 26, 2008.  Cort sent it by Express mail on Saturday Nov. 29, 2008.

We are also hoping to see my supplemental brief docketed and distributed to the Justices today.  This was sent via FED EX on Wed. Nov. 26 and was delivered on Friday Nov. 28 at 9:05 AM, but it still hasn’t been updated to the docket…see Fed ex tracking number 866846734555”
Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Natural Born Citizen, Judah Benjamin article, Texas Darlin blog, December 1, 2008, Obama not natural born citizen, thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com, Donofrio new site on WordPress, naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo Donofrio has moved his website from Google’s blogger account to WordPress. Donofrio has a new
article that explains natural born citizen in response to the Judah Benjamin article on the Texas Darlin
blog.

“On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue.  While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion – that Obama is not eligible – I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”.  It is “national law” which is controlling.  I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above.  He has obviously done much research.  But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject.”

There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens’.”

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

This leads to the second point of error.

SECOND MISTAKE:  Failure to properly analyze common law.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Florida 2008 election, Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Florida Election Statutes, FL Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, Contest of Election, Unsuccessful candidate, Qualified Elector, Taxpayer, Patriot call, Uphold Constitution

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

Call to Patriots

Defend the US Constitution

Barack Obama, who believes that the US Constitution is outdated, has thumbed his nose at the Constitution,
and instead of providing legal proof that he is elibible to be president, engaged in legal wrangling and
diversionary tactics to avoid the issue. Obama has made it past the first hurdle, the general election. We are
now left with checks and balances provided for in the US Constitution, Federal Election law and some state
statutes.

The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

102.168  Contest of election.–
“(1)  Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2)  Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3)  The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b)  Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.

So, does anyone out there have the intestinal fortitude, concern over upholding and defending the US Constitution or love for this country?

Any takers for this challenge?

Perhaps Bob Barr, who ran on the Libertarian Ticket in Florida will take this challenge. Consider this video of Mr. Barr speaking about constitutional concerns:

Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution

There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Follow Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

Leo Donofrio NJ lawsuit, Update November 23, 2008, US Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clerk Danny Bickell misconduct

Leo Donofrio has provided an update today, Sunday, November 23, 2008 regarding his NJ lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

“This past week, Leo C. Donofrio forwarded to the Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts an official allegation of misconduct against SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell.

United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now “Distributed for Conference of Dec. 5th, 2008″ to the full Court meeting in private on that date. The case was the subject of previous sabotage by SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell (as well as judicial misconduct by NJ Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino). Bickell, after receiving the emergency stay application which requested extraordinary relief to stay the national election, took it upon himself to deny the application on the very time sensitive date it was filed, Nov. 3, a day before the election day popular vote.

As it stands, this case, and the Presidency, now rest in the hands of the nine Supreme Justices, a situation that could have come to pass prior to the votes being counted on election day had Mr. Bickell actually done the job he’s paid to do – be a clerk – as opposed to his specious illegal attempt to play Supreme Court Justice and overrule the long standing precedent of McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976). Please note that the link provided goes to the 5th Circuit follow up action as all links to the actual Supreme Court decision appear to have been mysteriously cut off.

Incredibly, the McCarthy v. Briscoe case provides multiple controlling precedent to the justiciability of the action now before the Supreme Court. No wonder this Supreme Court decision can’t be found online...anywhere. Hopefully, broken links to the case will be resolved as this blog makes the rounds.

The American people need to familiarize themselves with McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) (check note 1 when you find the case) in order to understand the precedent which supports the relief requested by Donofrio.

That case is relevant as to the procedural grounds Mr. Bickell incorrectly (and illegally) applied in denying to pass on Donofrio’s stay application. But more important is that the case also provides supporting precedent for Donofrio in that US Supreme Court Justice Powell, late in the 1976 Presidential cycle, intervened on behalf of 3rd party candidate Eugene McCarthy, and forced the Texas Secretary of State to include McCarthy on the ballots after McCarthy made an emergency application to the Supreme Court.

In the first count of Donofrio’s stay application, he had requested the SCOTUS remove the names of Obama and McCain from New Jersey ballots. (His second count also requested that the SCOTUS stay the national election.) McCarthy v. Briscoe stands for the precedent that the SCOTUS has the power to order a Secretary of State to include or remove names from ballots when a Constitutional issue has been invoked.

The case is also procedurally relevant because Bickell told Donofrio he didn’t submit the stay application to Justice Souter because it failed to meet the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 23.3 in that Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court request for emergency relief used the words “injunctive relief” instead of the word “stay” and therefore Donofrio had failed to request a stay in the lower court and was not thereafter allowed to come to the US Supreme Court with such a request.

This was a disgusting attempt at one of the worst bluffs I’ve ever seen. Bickell was called with a lightning fast “all in” only to be found holding the infamous 7-2 off suit and the flop, turn and river all failed to connect with his crap holding because:

1. Donofrio did request a “stay” in his initial Appellate Division complaint. Also, the NJ Attorney General’s office argued, in their reply brief, against the court issuing a “stay”.

2. Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court motion relied on his full lower court record when he requested a “Motion for injunctive relief” from the NJ Supreme Court by way of a signed certification and the submission of a 75 page appendix which Bickell did not have in his possession to review.

3. A stay isinjunctive relief”. Any first year law student would know that. But Mr. Bickell is a staff attorney at the United States Supreme Court. He knew damn well that the interference he ran was willfull misconduct.

4. The case has actually been distributed for conference of all nine Justices, a situation Bickell tried to prevent.

5. The case McCarthy v. Briscoe stated,

“Indeed, an application styled as one of for a stay, if it in fact seeks some form of affirmative relief, may be treated as a request for an injunction and disposed of accordingly.”

Isn’t that just amazing. Stay clerk Bickell tried to overturn historic United States Supreme Court precedent when he refused to pass on my stay application based on a false semantic attack not even grounded in law, but rather directly opposed to it. Had Bickell treated the emergency application with the dignity it deserved, the issue of whether Obama and McCain were Constitutionally eligible to be President could have been settled prior to the popular vote.

Had Bickell passed the stay application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, Souter would have denied it straight away, as he did when it was passed on to him on Nov. 6. Then if Bickell had followed US Supreme Court Rule 22.6, which required that Donofrio be notified of the disposition of the stay application “by appropriately speedy means”, Donofrio could have renewed the application to Justice Clarence Thomas on the evening of Nov. 3, or the next morning at the latest, and the SCOTUS could have stayed the popular vote until they made a decision on the merits.

But Bickell not only failed to pass on the application, he never gave Donofrio any notice whatsoever until Donofrio finally got through to Bickell‘s phone on Nov. 6 when Bickell told Donofrio that since he – not a Supreme Court Justice – had disposed of the case, no disposition notice was necessary at all. To hell with Rule 22.6.

Now that the popular vote has been recorded, Bickell has made a difficult situation ever more dangerous as millions of citizens who voted for Obama (and McCain) stand to have their votes voided post election, a situation my law suit sought desperately to preempt.

Now that the case – and the issues discussed therein – have been deemed legitimate by the Court having utilized the extraordinary step (see textbook image below) of distributing for conference a previously denied stay application, Mr. Bickell’s motivations should be thoroughly investigated by the Supreme Court and also by a U.S. Attorney.

Furthermore, Mr. Bickell should be fired and “we the people” need to see that it happens fast before he has the chance to pull the same cheap bluffs on other pending emergency stay applications headed swiftly to the Supreme Court this week. You can expect a very important update on this issue within the next 24 hours.

Below is a clipped page from the ultimate SCOTUS resource text, SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, page 794:

Read more here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

Larry Sinclair book, Obama drug encounter November 1999, Obama camp thugs, Sinclair YouTube video, Larry Sinclair story, Personal attacks, Delaware arrest, National Press Club, Donald Young murder, 2008 election book

Barack Obama became a curiousity in the news when he sought and gained a US Senate seat and spoke at the Democrat Convention in 2004. When Obama began his run for the presidency he, of course, became more news worthy. However, the one event and breaking story that probably gained the attention of more people and subsequently caused Obama to be scrutinized more by more people, was the YouTube video and allegation from Larry Sinclair of a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999. This was the catalyst for me and many others to examine the life, character and associations of Obama more closely. Not only did many more people get involved reasearching Obama, but Larry Sinclair’s websites became a gathering place for sharing information and and experiences with the Obama camp that varied from personal attacks and death threats to tampering of information on the internet and shutting down of sites questioning Obama.

We witnessed a new paradyme of news gathering and presentation. The MSM failed to report the truth about
Obama and Sean Hannity referred to this as the death of journalism. The internet began to take over as
the only place to find out about the real Obama. Of course the Obama camp tried it’s best to thwart the efforts by citizen journalists. This is where Larry Sinclair and many other bloggers and internet reporters stepped in. Despite the MSM not only ignoring the Larry Sinclair allegations and other important stories about Obama and along with the Obama camp trying to discredit Sinclair and anyone questioning Obama, Larry Sinclair and the internet news prevailed.

Larry Sinclair is publishing a book about his encounter with Obama in 1999 and the bigger story of his
experience trying to get Obama to be held accountable and making the public aware. This is an incredible
story that I have watched play out from a front row seat to my astonishment and disbelief. Up to this point
in my life, I have only read about experiences like this happening in other countries. However, despite
this all appearing surreal, it did indeed happen. As soon as Larry Sinclair produced his YouTube video,
he received personal attacks and death threats on his person and family, website attacks and eventual
incarceration in Delaware. This did not happen in the Soviet Union, Kenya or South America. This happened
in America.

I have followed, researched and written about the Larry Sinclair story probably more than any other source.
I can state with authority that Larry Sinclair could not have made up this story. I hope to write a book in the
near future and will elaborate on that and cover the other stories I have been associated with. However,
only Larry Sinclair can tell his story. Here is a quick statement that I sent to Larry recently for possible
inclusion in his book:
“The Larry Sinclair story was the catalyst for me and many others to begin questioning
the character and background of Barack Obama, a candidate that most of us knew little about.
Mr. Sinclair’s allegations appeared preposterous at first but captured my curiousity.
I began by examining the Official Illinois State Senate records for the period of November 3 – 8,
1999. I discovered that Obama was missing on November 4, 1999. I thought, “interesting.”
I then read the transcripts from the Tim Russert, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.
All three interviews asked Obama about his records during his tenure in the Illinois
Senate. Obama was consistently vague and evasive in his answers. This piqued my curiousity more.
One thing led to another and within a few days I knew that we had a problem with Obama. I had reached
the point of no return and could not in good conscience abandon my efforts. I continued to follow
the Larry Sinclair story and watched it play out in detail. I got to know Larry and we achieved
a level of mutual trust that soon became a precious commodity.
 
The Larry Sinclair story evolved into at least four large separate stories:
1. The initial encounter with Obama in 1999.
2. The Donald Young controversy.
3. The attacks made on Larry Sinclair, those following his story and anyone questioning
the “messiah” Obama.
4. The changing and withholding of internet information and attempts to prevent Larry Sinclair
and others from reporting the truth.
 
I have come to know Larry Sinclair as a person and not just a story. I admire Larry for his
persistence in the face of incredible odds, his integrity and his patriotism.”

If you want to know more about the real Barack Obama and what really happened during the 2008 election.
If you want to read a book about real events that are so surreal they appear as fiction, order a
copy of Larry Sinclair’s book here:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/