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:
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
- 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
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.”
“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
“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.