About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

SCOTUS & Wrotnowski:Rumors of a decision denying Cort's application are false.

#08A469 Wrotnowski v. Bysiewkz. Update

From Leo Donofrio's site:

[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM - Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort's application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.


Original Posting:
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
No. 08A469
 
Title:
Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:
 
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
  Case Nos.:
(SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ 
~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008
Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008
Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008
Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008
Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.



~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
 
 
Cort Wrotnowski
1057 North Street
(202) 862-8554
 
Greenwich, CT  06831
 
Party name: Cort Wrotnowski
Attorneys for Respondent:
 
 
Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
(860) 808-5316
 
Office of the Attorney General
 
 
55 Elm Street
 
 
P.O. Box 120
 
 
Hartford, CT  06141-0120
 
Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State


From A Blog Discussion:
 
Read
Scalia: 'Constitution Not Living Organism'
 
Scalia said he reads the text of the Constitution in a literal manner, a method in which the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the text guides interpretation. "Words mean what they mean."
 
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
“It takes 4 votes to put it on the docket. I wonder which of the conservatives voted against Donofrio?”

Since it is almost certain that Scalia read Cort’s brief before the 5th, is it not possible that the conservatives, when they met on the 5th, discussed the issues and said the brief filed to Scalia was more appropriate to hear?

Maybe this could be seen in a positive light. Even if the electorial college meets before the case is heard....there is no reason to assume that IF the court heard the case and IF they ruled in favor of the plaintiff....Mr. Obama could be forced to vacate the Oval Office. Of course, then we would have Biden for president... 
Comment by Sola Veritas
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
From Leo Donofrio's blog, 12/08/08:

[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]

My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

All eyes should now be closely watching http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm , Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.

PS: please apply "obamatruthfile" to all these threads.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive