Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:

“Connecticut Supreme Court

Cort Wrotnowski                             ,

                     Plaintiff,

          vs.

Ms. Bysiewicz  et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,

                     Defendant
 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
 Case No.:

Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
 

Dated this 2nd of November 2008

________________________

“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

FACTS
 

The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events.  During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S.  In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama.  (Exhibit X).    Table 1 gives the basic chronology.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
 

TABLE 1

DATE
 EVENT
 
June 2008
 Image posted asserting Barack Obama was a natural born citizen
 
July 2008
 Analyses produced by three computer document experts asserting forgery of official state document.
 
August 2008
 FactCheck.org issues rebuttal that addresses only 5-6 of the nearly 100 artifacts.  They remain silent on the rest.
 
August 2008
 Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
 
September 2008
 Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
 
October 16, 2008
 Plaintiff learns of  new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
 
October 24, 2008
 Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court.  Denied pursuant to 9-323.
 
Oct. 27-31, 2008
 Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
 

Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the  birth certificate useful in answering the question.

See exhibits V,W,X.Y

Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.

Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting. 

Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that this “Certification” document was proof  that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”

The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team.  The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.

That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.

LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?

The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:

 “…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”

She also asserts: 

“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States.  Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”

Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!

Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;

2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?

Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994))  provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.

From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice

“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232).  Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”

Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut  may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.

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.

Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up.  That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest.  Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing.  If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.

States do not have the right to promote on the ballot  presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero.  She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.

CONCLUSION:  PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY

I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records.  If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
 

This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cort Wrotnowski                            

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

425-698-7084

VERIFICATION

I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”