Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8- Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."
- On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:
- Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
- United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407
- Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.
- This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:
- http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
- If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:
- http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for- conference-on.html
- Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.
- This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
- Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
Regarding Berg v. Obama - this is from America's Right:Jeff Schreiber spoke to Philip J Berg after the FEC filed a waiver of right to respond. Here are some exerpts
from Jeff Schreiber’s report:“According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.
Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.”
“This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.
“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”
“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.
Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.”
“While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.”
Read more of the article here:
Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:
"...Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg's case as well.
Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction..."
Regarding possible fraud regarding rumored Virginia Case - this is from CitizenWells:
COMMENT: Where is the Media? AWOL as always. Where were they during the Election? AWOL They ignored Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Obama did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. They ignored Obama's extensive relations with dubious characters such as Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Farrakhan, Dorn, etc. They ignored the Democrats role in putting America in the current financial crisis through their protection of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from meaningful regulations put forth by Sen. McCain and others. They ignored Sen. Obama's possible violations of the Logan Act by his meddling in Iraq and Kenya. The list of ignored issues goes on and on. The year investigative journalism died is 2008.Obama is not eligible, Virginia Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Circuit Court, Richmond Virginia, Judge Walter W. Stout III, Court ruling, Wild Bill, VA Board of Elections, Obama camp fraud?, Breaking News **
November 19, 2008
Another Obama Camp scam?
When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by
the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought
and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing
and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and
found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court’s office. I was told that several people
had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case........
Found here:
If this is not another attempt by the Obama camp to shore up credibility and discredit those such as Philip J Berg, please respond with proof to the contrary.
Also, anyone affiliated with Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III in Richmond Virginia, we would love to get a response from you.
** UPDATE **
I Just found this on
http://americamustknow.com/virginiacase.aspx
“Message:
RE: WILD BILL CASEI too believe that this case is a “fake case” based on the following:
1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html — Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.
2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.
3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.
============
While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the “facts,” I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research - which you can verify yourself - for your consideration.”
