Wrotnowski Stay Denied, Case Essentially Dead

It’s official, Cort Wrotnowski’s application for stay has been denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. I have no details as to how many Justices on either side, etc., but none of it comes as a surprise.

From CNN’s Political Ticker blog:


The justices without comment on Monday refused to intervene in the November 4 presidential election, dismissing the claims of Cort Wrotnowski, a resident of Greenwich, Connecticut.

In his appeal, Wrotnowski claimed that because Obama’s father was a Kenyan-born British subject, the president-elect does meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in the United States.

Many legal analysts questioned Wrotnowski’s argument.

“The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you’re a natural born citizen,” said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court. “And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”


As far as I know–and I very much could be wrong–the applications for stay in both the Wrotnowski and Donofrio case essentially asked the Court two questions: First, whether the Court would consider the applications for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, and second, whether the Court would grant that petition for writ of certiorari and agree to hear the case at hand on its merits. In Bush v. Gore, for example, the same sort of process was taken, with an application for stay filed first and subsequently treated by the Court as a petition for certiorari in order for the case to be heard from there. That’s why most Election Law casebooks have two separate opinions — one for whether the stay should be considered a petition for certiorari, and another for the petition itself.

In the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases, those applications for stay–the ones asking the Court to consider them as petitions for writ of certiorari–were denied. Therefore, as far as I know, there is no petition for writ of certiorari to live on in perpetuity in either case. Thus, the Donofrio case, in its current form, is dead in the water. As is the Wrotnowski case.

That leaves Philip Berg’s case and Orly Taitz’s Lightfoot v. Bowen as the only ones before the Court. Lightfoot, I believe, was denied by Kennedy and may await the same sort of conference which doomed Wrotnowski and Donofrio. While Berg’s case and Taitz’s case are very different from those filed by Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio–in fact, I thought the latters’ questions were more fitting for the Court–I have no reason to believe that either Berg’s or Taitz’s petition for writ of certiorari will be anything but denied. Given the disposition on the [admittedly] superficially similar cases over the past two weeks, the already insurmountable odds can be considered even more daunting.

A Not-Completely-Unrelated Note:

As an aside, 217 years ago today, three-quarters of the states ratified the first ten amendments to our Constitution. Let’s say a few prayers today that, not limited simply to the Bill of Rights, the ideas and ideals of our nation’s founders can be understood and upheld.

To me, the questions into Obama’s eligibility has never been about Obama or ideology or any sort of conspiracy; it has always come down to the Constitution, and I would ask the very same questions and write the exact same things if the candidate had been someone else. While not in the Bill of Rights, the intent of our founders is inherent in Article II, Section 1 — and regardless of the political candidate in question, we should be assured that the guidelines set forth by the framers are being honored and given the respect they deserve.

As I’ve written before, it’s been a certain segment of the population which has unnecessarily expanded–and in the process diluted–this particular issue. I was disappointed to see the lack of focus and the overall disjointed approach exhibited at last week’s press conference in Washington, D.C., in spite of the hard work and well-founded motivation behind it. The issue is not about Obama, but it has been championed by some who seem occasionally inclined to put the constitutional issue on the back burner and focus instead on the mainstream press and a number of other issues. It’s not about the media. It’s not about the president-elect’s skin color. It’s simply about the Constitution, about Article II, Section 1, and about a valid, engaging question which should be answered.

Share

Comments

  1. Annette says:

    I also thought what other posters here have said: perhaps SCOTUS is waiting for the Blago scandal to “hang” Obama, and THEN they will rule against him.

    That way it lessens any rioting that would happen if they just ruled outright, and would enable the people to start hating Obama in advance of a ruling, thereby also serving to lessen the outrage.

  2. K says:

    Make sure to watch the Argentina youtube. It is America in 2009 or soon thereafter.

    http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/america-is-going-down-by-the-head/

  3. Anonymous says:

    It is commonly accepted that a car that is “born” in the US by a US manufacturer is an American car, and that a car “born” in the US by a foreign manufacturer is a foreign car.

    No one has ever confused this issue. Unless you apply it to citizenship.

  4. Anonymous says:

    from Claudia,
    Reno, NV.
    OK, this is the way it works, folks….. get hold of your congressperson or senator preferrably by phone, or letter but at least by email and tell them of your objections to Obama and find one that is sympathetic to this cause. It seems that the SCOTUS has to wait until all Electoral College duties are performed and followed through before the Courts can possibly get involved in this issue. I copied this from theobamafile.com and you can look it up to see if you think it is good, if you want to. Lookk under “Justices Deny Wrotnowski”…. and in the final blue printed lines, there is a link to get hold of your Congressperson or Senator….

    [Justices Deny Wrotnowksi

    Curt Wrotnowksi's case, Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State, has been denied by the U. S. Supreme Court.

    Docket #08A469 -- The application for stay and/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

    Update: Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.

    The Justices denied the "stay' but have retained the "certori." It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College "elects" him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.

    Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.

    Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.

    Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.

    The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.

    Only one senator AND only one representative -- so start writing yours today! -- Use this chart and associated info in your message.]

    In other words, we are still able to try to change the outcome and get someone to stand up for the 54million of us that are not going to accept Obama as our President.

  5. Koyaan says:

    Félicie wrote:

    I disagree with you (not being a lawyer but a dual citizen). When did Obama become an Indonesian citizen, assuming that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro? It must have been around 1970. At that time, swearing allegiance to a foreign nation automatically implied a renounciation of the U.S. citizenship. If you don’t believe me, look up the history of dual citizenship in the U.S.

    That’s incorrect.

    If you don’t believe me, read the actual law that was on the books at the time.

    From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

    Chapter 3–Loss of Nationality

    LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN

    Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth of naturalization, shall lose his nationality by–

    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon the application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

    In other words, a minor child cannot lose their US citizenship, even if they have been naturalized as a citizen of another country, unless they fail to return to the US and establish a permanent residence prior to their twenty-fifth birthday.

    Which Obama clearly did.

    k

  6. Arlen Williams says:

    The link to this article was requested:

    Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

    I think it is quite clear that the difference in jurisdiction between Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Bush v. Gore is that, for Wrotnowski there are constitutional “mechanisms” in place for a “challenge” of a presidential candidate’s eligibility, while in the case of the Bush v. Gore, the question had to do with the Florida Supreme Court overruling in that state’s process for counting and certifying its vote (a constitutional issue bubble-up).

    That is a distinction great enough for a judge to drive a truck through.

    1. Wrotnowski: a U.S. constitutional process is already proscribed for this challenge. Jurisdiction is spelled out.

    2. Bush: State Supreme Court violated their own Constitution. Jurisdiction has already been violated by a lower court (which is a classic standing for of SCOTUS case).

    Keep faith. Push senators and representatives to action. Do what is necessary to inform the People.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Followup to:
    Anonymous said…
    December 15, 2008 7:23 PM

    Jeff, – any thoughts or opinions on the following?

    From: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1944

    We are fortunate to have two respectable Internet posters: theobamafile.com (technically not a blog) believes that these cases haven’t been completely denied, while Jeff Schreiber at americasright.com believes that they’re “dead in the water”…

    theobamafile.com:

    Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.

    The Justices denied the “stay’ but have retained the “certori.” It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College “elects” him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.

    Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.

    Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.

    Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.

    The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.

    Jeff opines:

    As far as I know–and I very much could be wrong–the applications for stay in both the Wrotnowski and Donofrio case essentially asked the Court two questions: First, whether the Court would consider the applications for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, and second, whether the Court would grant that petition for writ of certiorari and agree to hear the case at hand on its merits. In Bush v. Gore, for example, the same sort of process was taken, with an application for stay filed first and subsequently treated by the Court as a petition for certiorari in order for the case to be heard from there. That’s why most Election Law casebooks have two separate opinions — one for whether the stay should be considered a petition for certiorari, and another for the petition itself.

    In the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases, those applications for stay–the ones asking the Court to consider them as petitions for writ of certiorari–were denied. Therefore, as far as I know, there is no petition for writ of certiorari to live on in perpetuity in either case. Thus, the Donofrio case, in its current form, is dead in the water. As is the Wrotnowski case.

    Incidentally, I previously linked over to InvestigatingObama with their take on this: Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?

    theobamafile goes on to say:

    Only one senator AND only one representative — so start writing yours today! — Use this chart and associated info in your message.

    No matter how you think all of this is going to go down, here are my thoughts on the process, going forward. Also, don’t forget that a current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here and I’ve aggregated a number of State-based electoral reform initiatives here.

    -Phil

  8. Anonymous says:

    SCOTUS vote was 9-0 to DENY cert

  9. Anonymous says:

    Alan keyes is a whackjob with absolutely ZERO credibility. That moron couldn’t get a crowd if he paid the. He’s looney tunes, just ask any reputable lawyer which leaves out Berg, donofrio, Keyes and Martin!!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Oh, there’s just so much depressing stuff. It’s all hard to swallow.

    I thought I’d amuse myself and go onto the now defamed, disgraced and all but defunct API site. It’s always good for a laugh these days.

    I wasn’t prepared for the size of the laugh I got — this one is so over the top that I was almost literally ROTFL:

    http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/obama-intervenes-personally-on-the-michelle-tape-and-imam-document-an-urgent-meeting-held-in-oslo-between-api-and-obamas-representatives-only-hours-before-the-us-electoral-college-is-scheduled-to-m/

    “The two months saga nears the end. API did not expect any contact meeting to be initiated by Mr Obama in an effort to tone down the tape and Imamdoc story that has been kept alive by API for the last 60 days.

    “In a secret meeting held in Radison SAS hotel in Oslo yesterday night between Mr Korir and Mr Gregory Burns, it became clear that the President elect did not wish the story be kept alive any longer, especially because there are now issues with the Governor of Illinois coming up that may place a new burden on Obama.

    “The President elect in the words of his emissary wants API to stop circulating the story about his Wife’s call to API.

    “The meeting was attended by Korir, his legal representative, Mr Burns and Mrs Bryant Madelene.
    The two personalities told API that they were despatched to Oslo by Obama’s senior advisor. The two travelled back to Washington immediately after the meeting and inside their briefcase taking with them an agreement signed by both parties on how to bring the tape/Imamdoc to a close. On their way to Washington, they will make a stop-over in the UK and hold a short meeting with the Imam and his UK legal representative.

    “All this is happening hours before the Electoral College takes their seats to deliberate on the US Presidential elections that took place on the 4th of November.

    “The details of the agreement will not be made public, but API wishes to inform the readers that the parties have agreed to hold a final meeting in Washington in the next 7 days. The deal signed yesterday night was not conclusive, because API has set forward some demands that must be met if the tape and the Imamdoc is not to be made public. One of the demands is to hold a joint press conference with Obama’s senior advisor when announcing the details on the final agreement.”

    By API Editorial

  11. Anonymous says:

    You know if it wasn’t for the internet we probably wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near this far. The sky’s the limit now…Watch out scum. Now we gotcha covered in a whole new way.

  12. msjudy says:

    Ya know I have to make a point about why some people cannot, or will not see the truth even if it is in black and white, and lots of pictures drawn of it. If they aren’t ready to see it, or deal with it, it isn’t going to happen.

    Case in point, this is a true story. One night I went to sleep a democrat, and woke up a conservative. The transition has not been an easy one for me either.

    It seems that all my core beliefs about a lot of things have done a 180, I do have lots of conservative friends that are helping me out. I voted for McCain, because I knew what I was getting with him. I was in total shock when I voted republcan this year. It kind of feels like a ‘death,’ and it is sort of. The old msjudy is gone, and this new person has shown up, and my thinking is different, and I don’t sound the way I did before. In fact, my older brother said I sounded like a John Bircher, I didn’t even know what that was, I had to look it up. I’m still not sure what that is.

    They say the truth will p*** you off, but it will set you free too.

    Most people are not going to even think about changing, we are talking ‘core’ changes, the things you were brought up believing in, its hard if not impossible to do that in one lifetime.

    The first ‘change’ I made, because I was looking death in the face. It’s been a gradual changing since then, but it has taken me 26 years to do this.

    But in parting, I’d like to say that there is hope for us all. God didn’t bring me this far to drop me on my head. That’s a fact!!

    I want to say another thing to my fellow Americans on this blog, I don’t know anyone of you. I would sit down and drink coffee with any of you. I’m finding there ARE a lot of GOOD, FINE, people out there. Thank each and everyone of you for your encouragement at times. Thank you for listening.

  13. tanarg says:

    C:

    Those pending petitions for certiorari pertain to questions that were raised prematurely in cases seeking to prevent the election or prevent the electoral vote, so I cannot see them being revivified at this point. Their content is now moot.

  14. Jeff Schreiber says:

    msjudy,

    I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Now, I’m running one of the most popular individual-run conservative blogs out there. (Well, maybe that’s a little hyperbole…)

    Still, I know a thing or two about ideological shifts, and I know I’m happy to have you on our side.

    I may not be wealthy, but coffee’s on me.

    – Jeff

  15. PatGund@gmail.com says:

    “It is commonly accepted that a car that is “born” in the US by a US manufacturer is an American car, and that a car “born” in the US by a foreign manufacturer is a foreign car. “

    Gee, I guess that makes my Saturn VUE, (GM, Honda-made V6 engine and transmission) a dual-citizen.

    What about that Hyundai (partly owned by GM), or that PT Cruiser (built in Mexico), or that Range Rover (owned by Ford), etc. etc.

    The car industry anymore is pretty mixed up. US auto makers have major holdings overseas – and overseas auto makers have major holdings here. To compare it to citizenship is like comparing apples to cement blocks – absolutely nothing in common.

  16. Arlen Williams says:

    I confess I do not understand how a request for a writ of certiorari is always called a request for a “stay.”

    A stay seeks to halt something that is to be done by means of a court judgment. In the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases, the lower courts effectively said that nothing is to be done (they would not hear the cases). How can a judge issue a stay of nothing?

    That would be equivalent to multiplying a zero! “Does not compute.”

    If the Donofrio and Wrotnowski request for certiorari are not still pending, why do they (at least the Donofrio case at this point in time) show up in the Pending Cases report on the SCOTUS site?

  17. Jeff Schreiber says:

    If the Donofrio and Wrotnowski request for certiorari are not still pending, why do they (at least the Donofrio case at this point in time) show up in the Pending Cases report on the SCOTUS site?

    Great question. There’s one of two answers: (1) The site hasn’t been updated or, more likely, (2) my assessment is WRONG!

  18. Arlen Williams says:

    I’ll try to clear this up, first here, then at The Right Side of Life, then at Investigating Obama. Should have done the homework earlier.

    The Donofrio v. Wells case mentions a subsequent (but apparently not included) petition for a writ of certiorari.

    The Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case does not even refer to a petition for certiorari.

    Messrs. Donofrio and Wrotnowski have for now “gone dark,” but maybe they will “alert the media” as John Gielgud said to “Arthur” in the movie, tomorrow.

    Maybe the major question now is, what cases for writ/injunction might the SCOTUS hear on January 9? — from whom? — how? — based upon what?

    Eh?

  19. Arlen Williams says:
  20. Arlen Williams says:

    “Just one more thing….”

    From the way the docket reads in the Donofrio (NJ) case, does it truly mean that a petition for cert. was not included? Maybe one was?

  21. Félicie says:

    Koyaan: “1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon the application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday.”

    OK, I see what you are saying. Obama’s mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship based on her “obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon her own application”(has she, I wonder?) Obama would have been the one on whose behalf naturalization was obtained, and so his citizenship would be autimatically restored on his return to the U.S.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Both SCOTUS cases were denied 9-0. They see absolutely no merit in these cases, do they? It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.

  23. btw says:

    Please somebody give an official link that shows that Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases are still among pending cases in SCOTUS. Until then I’m forced to believe that, e.g., Wrotnowski case is entirely denied:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202426766894

    “Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve; Sides with Times in libel case”
    The Associated Press
    December 15, 2008

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another appeal arguing Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because of his citizenship.

    The challenge by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment…”

  24. let us move forward says:

    Koyaan wrote:

    Chapter 3–Loss of Nationality

    LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN

    Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth of naturalization, shall lose his nationality by–

    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon the application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

    In other words, a minor child cannot lose their US citizenship, even if they have been naturalized as a citizen of another country, unless they fail to return to the US and establish a permanent residence prior to their twenty-fifth birthday.

    In other words, a minor child cannot lose their US citizenship, even if they have been naturalized as a citizen of another country, unless they fail to return to the US and establish a permanent residence prior to their twenty-fifth birthday.

    Which Obama clearly did.

    So Mr. O held 3 citizenships at majority. Does that mean that he had to do nothing at majority to become a full US citizen? There is a formal procedure at majority for a person with dual (triple) citizenship to chose one citizenship. An Oath of Affirmation is sworn in front of a judge choosing United States citizenship and renouncing all other citizenships. Today, you have to affirm sole allegiance to the United States in front of a Postal Worker to obtain a passport. In 1981, you could obtain a passport by mail.

    Has Mr. O formally renounced all claims to foreign citizenship? Have all foreign countries to which he “owed allgeniance” formally acknowledged that he is solely a United States citizen?

    This law states that he would not lose his right to US citizenship. Is there a law that says that he had to do nothing other than establish residence in the US to totally regain his native born United States citizenship status?

    On what if he did travel under an Indonesian passport in 1981? and claim foreign student status when he attended Columbia and Occidental?

    And, according to Mr. O’s claims, he never did have “natural born” status as the framers of the Constitution understood it.

  25. Anonymous says:

    The Constitution to most citizens these days (esp. the last few generations schooled as they have been) is just some document having to do with a history of this country that has no relevance any longer. It did not die just in the last month. It was stomped upon when a decision was made 35 years ago which found something legitimate in it to enable human beings to murder other human beings – the most vulnerable – up to and including now infanticide. The legacy of this great “decision” by those exhalted oh so learned of the law is now something like 50,000,000 fellow citizens – burned, heads and limbs ripped off, poisoned, experimented upon and now left to die in soiled utility rooms (approved by Obama) IF their fight for life helped them survive the intended kill. That brave decision of “well, what could it hurt” will be exported through Obama’s brave linkage and support of the UN – one world admiration.

    No, the character of those even sworn to uphold its fine foundation is what is measured today. And there was not much dismay or disapproval way back then by fellow citizens permitted to live. And we are now reaping the justice ordered by the blood of so many innocents. Our very blessings and the One Who blessed us with them have been mocked beyond belief.

  26. Anonymous says:

    On Drudge today:

    [3 Senators that were constitutionally disqualified due to age WERE admitted to the Senate]

    Constitution? What Constitution?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Since no one really seems to know the minds of the Justices in these cases nor their reasoning upon the law, it would be a good thing if someone could send both entire filings to Judge Bork for his thought and reasoning. He could simply give the basis – perhaps just no authority due to the provided for measures in the EC and/or Congress.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Obama’s Main Man Caught on Tape!

    Rahm–On Tape 21 Times!
    Check out this little item in the Sun-Times’ Michael Sneeds’s column this morning about the number of times U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff designate, is captured on tape by the feds talking to representatives of Gov. Rod Blagoyevich about the appointment of Obama’s replacement in the Senate:

    Sneed hears rumbles President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss’ vacant Senate seat!

    A lot of chit-chat?

    Hot air?

    Or trouble?

    • • To date: Rahm’s been mum. Stay tuned.

    Anybody got any thoughts on the number of times Rahm dropped the f-bomb during those 21 taped conversations? Yesterday, the Obama transition team announced its own review of conversations between its staff and the governor came up with a clean bill of health for the Obama team; however, the transition team is not releasing a report of its findings listing all contacts supposedly at the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office. That information will have to wait until December 22. Sneed’s sources within Fitzgerald’s office have proven pretty impeccable over time. Was his office trying to save Obama from huge embarrassment by asking him to hold off on reporting anything yet and dropping this little item in Sneed’s column?

  29. Anonymous says:

    Could you explain why Phil’s, Leo’s and Cort’s cases still live on in the Supreme Court?

    Denying a “stay” or “motion” is not the end of a case necessarily.

    Denial of a writ of certiorari is the end of a case. Do you see this was denied in any of the cases?

    If in your mind you want to correct the flaws in the election process, the process must be allowed to run the course. Everything is alleged until the crime takes place and at least two members of Congress raise an objection on 6 January 2009.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I am not a lawyer but have been trying to follow these cases. Can someone please explain the difference between a “stay” and a “writ of certiorari”. I appreciate your patience and help. I am a conservative social worker (of all things) and keep hoping that somehow we will succeed in showing the true Obama

  31. Anonymous says:

    in the spirit of what Paul had to say in Ephesians 5:11…

    ‘Truth is the mortal enemy of the lie’

    see:
    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html
    for the synopsis of years that has brought us here.

  32. Sarah says:

    Thanks to all who are posting. I’d pretty much lost all hope after the EC vote and petition denials, but now I’m feeling a whole lot better.

    So, the legislators can object during the ballot counting, and the SC still basically has the cases available to hear after 1/8/09 (or they have to wait until then) if they decide to do so.

    And, forgive me – I haven’t read politicalthirdrail’s whole comment (though I will save to read later), but I have a question, Jeff:

    If the legislative and judicial branches of the government neglect to ascertain Obama’s eligibility, is the executive branch then able to act? Isn’t it the executive branch’s duty to enforce the law? Is there anything Bush could do to require that Obama prove his citizenship status?

  33. btw says:

    I repeat my request because I don’t see my previous post. Please somebody place an official link that can show that Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases are still among cases pending decision of SCOTUS. Until then I’m forced to believe that both cases are entirely denied. See, e.g.,
    http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202426766894

    “Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve; Sides with Times in libel case”
    The Associated Press
    December 15, 2008

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another appeal arguing Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because of his citizenship.

    The challenge by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment…”

    Thanks for a future answer.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know of any instance that an “elector” of any state did not vote for Obama. I know some states require an “elector” to sign a pledge that they will vote for their parties candidate. Anyone have any info on how the “electors” that are on the CA lawsuit voted, with CA being one of the states that, by law, requires to vote as pledged.

    An elector that does not vote as “pledged” can be prosecuted, however, I believe, in most states, it is just a misdemeaner. However, to the best of my knowledge, no “elector” has every been prosecuted.

    It would have been great to test the system in terms of witholding a pledged Obama vote to see if there were any criminal charges. That truly would allow the “brave” elector to use discovery to get at the truth.

    Please, anyone….can you offer any insight?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Scotus may not want to overthrow the election of Obama. It is fine with me if they say heck with the constitution. I read some where that what 5judges think is the law and nothing more. At least they can clarify that a person need to be or not be a natural born citizen of the USA or just need to be a citizen or even if that is not necessary to be POTUS.

    According to some, Obama is born in Kenya and never naturalized in which case he is not even US citizen. We definitely know that he is born to a non US parent in which case he is not a natural born citizen.

    By issuing a declaration that POTUS need not or need be natural born or just citizen, they will be doing a great favor for the country by removing any doubts who can be POTUS.

    I am sure many persons in the same situation as Obama may not have even tried.

    Now we will never know whether Obama is legit or usurper. By ruling that he is eligible, they will at least make him legit.

    Also Arnold or Jindal can plan from now on about 2012 if their position is clarified

  36. Patriot says:
  37. Anonymous says:

    This is a “sort of” related article that should be looked into by any and all of us interested in Obama’s honesty and integrity. I got permission to copy and paste to selected places from the author GinaCobb Blogs and she/they are a very honest blog that is working hard to open people’s eyes about Obama. The link to the site where this is all posted is http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/12/obamas-house-is-owned-by-rezkos-lawyer.html

    [December 16, 2008
    Rezko’s Lawyer Owns Obama’s House
    By DemocracyRules

    This is another scandal that just keeps growing. When it first became known that Rezko helped Obama buy his house, Obama himself called the deal “boneheaded”.

    Now things look much worse, because Rezko ‘s lawyer owns the house. His name is William Miceli, and Obama formerly worked for him.

    Documents here Download 5046_Greenwood_AV_Lexus (December 16, 2008

    Why would Rezko’s lawyer own Obama’s house?

    There are several explanations, and none look good. Obama tried to buy the house because Michelle wanted it. “According to My DD: Direct Democracy, in 2004, Barack’s wife, Michelle, was on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks and in this capacity, learned of a designated historical home in Kenwood that was for sale — the home and the adjacent land at 5046 South Greenwood.”

    But the sellers were asking more than the market value. They also insisted on selling the adjacent empty lot at the same time. The house and the two lots together made an attractive package, because it became a corner property with a big yard.

    House picture here

    The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.

    Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots.

    Michelle had the house she wanted, and the Obama’s had a house that looked “Senatorial”.

    But the deal was unethical because Rezko had conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford.

    And since Rezko’s lawyer actually owns the property, a benefit is still being conferred to Obama all the time he lives there.

    But wait, there’s more! The mortgage is way too high. It’s so high it violates the lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. Why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?

    But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. A bank employee found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. The employee blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.

    But wait there’s even more! Rezko borrowed money for the deal from his friend and backer Nadhmi Auchi, a British billionaire from Iraq who was mixed up in the oil-for food scandal. Auchi has a very complicated past, and he’s very litigous about any mention of his name.

    Does Nadhmi Auchi effectively own or control the house Obama lives in?

    Now there’s word that Patrick Fitzgerald is getting interested in these dealings. I sure hope he does.

    Why would Rezko’s lawyer own Obama’s house?

    There are several explanations, and none look good. Obama tried to buy the house because Michelle wanted it. “According to My DD: Direct Democracy, in 2004, Barack’s wife, Michelle, was on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks and in this capacity, learned of a designated historical home in Kenwood that was for sale — the home and the adjacent land at 5046 South Greenwood.”

    But the sellers were asking more than the market value. They also insisted on selling the adjacent empty lot at the same time. The house and the two lots together made an attractive package, because it became a corner property with a big yard.

    The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.

    Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots.

    Michelle had the house she wanted, and the Obama’s had a house that looked “Senatorial”.

    But the deal was unethical because Rezko had conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford.

    And since Rezko’s lawyer actually owns the property, a benefit is still being conferred to Obama all the time he lives there.

    But wait, there’s more! The mortgage is way too high. It’s so high it violates the lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. Why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?

    But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. A bank employee found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. The employee blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.

    But wait there’s even more! Rezko borrowed money for the deal from his friend and backer Nadhmi Auchi, a British billionaire from Iraq who was mixed up in the oil-for food scandal. Auchi has a very complicated past, and he’s very litigous about any mention of his name.

    Does Nadhmi Auchi effectively own or control the house Obama lives in?

    Now there’s word that Patrick Fitzgerald is getting interested in these dealings. I sure hope he does.

    Claudia,
    Reno, NV

  38. Anonymous says:

    McCain carried the State of Missouri and he won the electors in tht state.

  39. Anonymous says:

    WND investigator has discovered that Obama neighbors in Hawaii do not recall his family or himself living at address stated on certification of birth posted on his website, nor does the address match the birth announcement in the 1961 newspaper. One neighbor of that address has signed an affidavit attesting to having lived at neighboring address since before 1961.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83851

  40. Koyaan says:

    Anonymous wrote:

    One neighbor of that address has signed an affidavit attesting to having lived at neighboring address since before 1961.

    That’s funny.

    I don’t see anything in the article or in Baro’s affidavit claiming that a neighbor signed an affidavit.

    Would you care to point out where this was claimed?

    k

Speak Your Mind

*