The Courts v. Sovereign American Citizens; John Charlton Explains the Tyranny

This new article in The Post & Email explains the problem of "standing" faced by Obama (in)eligibility plaintiffs in the courts. In so doing, it also probes the abrogation of the fundamental, Creator endowed, "natural" Rights of Sovereign American Citizens, by the government We employ and entrust to be our devoted servants.

Of Very Recent Precedent, a Self-Abdication by the Courts of their Authority to Enforce the Constitution

by John Charlton

(Oct. 7, 2009) — Standing is a legal concept which has been employed in many suits regarding challenges to Obama’s usurpation of office. For most Americans it is a concept which is obtuse, illogical, and non-sensical; but what most do not know that it is of very recent provenance, originating only in the last 35 some years.

That is how it begins. This is how it concludes.

The logic could not be simpler. The cowardice of the Court could not be clearer.

This is why it is so obvious to the common man or woman, that the Judiciary is shirking its duty.

In between, are key excerpts and the overall explanation of Supreme Court rulings, which have failed Us, the People. This judicial malfeasance of the public trust includes majority opining by our purported "conservative champion," Antonin Scalia. Alas, "shirking its duty," is too gracious a depiction. As the "no standing" rulings of the courts in this eligibility matter signal, the authentic United States of America is, in large part, lost to us.

Carlton couples this article today, with a similarly excellent editorial, "Endemic Corruption and what to do about it." There, the absurdity of extra-constitutional government is further explored.

American government must not be allowed to succeed in empowering itself, to supersede the natural law inherent of the People. Our authentic America must be re-established -- and no one will do that, unless We do it.

Arlen Williams

"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Donofrio Ups the Ante v. Comments Discrediting Scalia's Referral and Full Court's Distribution to Conference

There seems to be an effort to discredit the action that Scalia and the SCOTUS took on Friday, Dec. 5, upon the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz petition to stay the Electoral College vote. As you may know, this case was referred by Justice Alito and accepted by the full court to committee, which will assess the case this Friday, Dec. 12, in order to decide upon any further action. It could grant a stay, deny the case, call for a brief from the opposition, call for oral arguments, etc.

Whether the debunking effort is merely ad hoc, or being orchestrated, I cannot say, though the Axelrod Astroturfers are infamous. But I can relate this blogospheric attack, then post Leo Donofrio's replies. While Donofrio's own suit of the New Jersey Secretary of State was denied, he is representing Cort Wrotnowski, in his petition of the SCOTUS, based upon a Connecticut filing against its own SoS.

In the comments below an illinoisreview.com piece, "Supreme Court refers Obama natural born citizen question and moves forward," on Monday 12/8, is found this bold attempt at the debunk:

The Supreme Court has a rule: a litigant may request a stay from the Justice for the circuit where their case arose. If it is denied, they can come back and ask another Justice of their choice. When that happens, the 2nd Justice always refers the matter to the court for conference, so they can get all 9 to agree on throwing it out and be done with it.

If they ever get something they want to grant, they ALWAYS issue an order to the other side requesting opposition. No court would ever issue a stay without having first have heard from both sides.

Obviously, publicity-seeking vexatious litigants have now figured out that they can get a lot of attention by this 2-step process -- its a sure way to get the trash they file listed on the docket. I suppose we can expect this to continue all the way up through January 20th.

Posted by: Vera | Tuesday, December 09, 2008 at 02:18 AM

Similarly, in Donofrio's own Natural Born Citizen blog article, today: "The Washington Times Coverage of Donofrio and Wrotnowski SCOTUS Cases," he cites this criticism, as reported by Times reporter, Tom Ramstack:

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”

To this denigration dealt by Rep. Norton, Donofrio responds in his piece:

That’s a rather absurd statement. Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all. If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it. But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine. Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court. Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:

No. 07A638
Title:	Ate Kays Company, Applicant v. Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District

Case Nos.:

(175 EM 2007)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008	Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008	Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008	Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia. —————

No. 7A421 Michigan, Applicant v. Corey Ramone Frazier Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Michigan Case Nos.: (131041) Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens. Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens. Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito. Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.

The intrepid New Jerseyan draws two examples from the SCOTUS record and puts more chips on the table. But, this does not satisfy one comments poster, who sees the bet and raises, as follows:

JudgeDredd Says:
December 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The second time you submit to a second justice, if they deny without submitting to the full court for review, you can submit it a third time. By sending it to the full court for review they can get rid of your case FASTER because that is your last shot. Your case will be one of thousands that the clerks pick through and recommend.It is very very possible (likely?) that not one justice has even seen your brief much less read it.The justices never even see the vast majority of applications.The court takes up such cases at its discretion and you have no Constitutional right whatsoever to even have it considered.

Donofrio sees the bet of JudgeDredd and calls:

Doesn't matter. If you submit it the first time or the second time, the Justice you submit it to has the option of referring it to the full Court and once it's referred, the Court may then deny it together. Upon the referral, if the full Court denies it without distributing it for conference, THEN NO 3RD RENEWAL IS ALLOWED. So, if the Court wanted to send a stern message they could have denied Cort's case as a full court on Monday without scheduling it for conference. Your point is in error. Once the full Court denies the application, you can't resubmit it to a 3rd Justice.

Thus, Leo maintains a countenance of confidence in his case and certainty in his place at the SCOTUS conference table. That tends to boost I.O.'s confidence.

Whom do you believe won the hand?

Are you a student of the SCOTUS who would like to state your case, here? If so, the "comments" link awaits you. Or, maybe something just "strikes you," somehow.

Or, if you wish to pass this question on to a litigious lifeline, please click the envelope.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O. <>>>>>>>>>>>>

Addendum: Since much of this post comes across on the negative, I will mention another, rosier scenario, postulated by many. It "holds" that Scalia (and Thomas, perhaps others) may have wanted to dispose of the Donofrio suit in favor of a stronger Wrotnowski case and thus, he waited for the denial of Donofrio v. Wells and immediately referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

In the same set of comments, Donofrio's remarks:

December 10, 2008 at 11:36 am

Just because a Justice refers it to the full Court, the full Court is not obligated to distribute it for conference. Upon Scalia's referral, the Court could have sent a stern message of denial without ever having distributed it for conference. The Court could have acted on Cort's application on the same day they denied mine by simply denying his. But they didn't. I don't know what it means, but neither does anybody else who isn't a SCOTUS Justice.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "Natural Born Citizen" Case Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia (about Obama's foreign father)

Justice Scalia, by referring Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to committee on December 12 may allow the Supreme Court to decide upon Barack Obama's status as a presidential candidate before the currently scheduled Electoral College election day, December 15.

This case is essentially similar to the case of Leo Donofrio, who assisted Connecticut resident, Cort Wrotnoski, in drafting it. According to Donofrio, the basis is very much the same (not essentially about the birth certificate, but regarding a foreign father) and it includes additional corroborative research and/or reasoning. Also, the history of this case is less problematic for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) than the Donofrio case, due to a suspicious misfiling of the latter case by a New Jersey judge which may have provoked a question of standing before the Supreme Court.

My best suggestion for getting good interpretation of this is to visit Leo Donofrio's blog, where he has opined about Justice Scalia's potential thinking. Also, FreeRepublic.com, keyword: obamatruthfile (which will also likely include interesting discussion of numerous kinds). Also, Plains Radio Network, Inc. forum and The Obama File, Latest News.

Wrotnowski and Donofrio may be interviewed tonight on the Plains Radio Network, to discuss today's actions, possibly at 7pm CT (I do not know, but this has been their habit).

See The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge, for an analysis of this case, which would disqualify Obama, based upon the foreign citizenship of his father (and disqualify McCain, based upon his birth outside of American territory). It has very weighty constitutional merit, by documented contemporaneous meaning of "natural born Citizen."

The Donofrio case was denied, this morning. I will be updating this Weblog, to help you give you a snapshot of where the entire process is.

John Jay's request of the "natural born Citizen" requirement
click image to enlarge | h/t: FReeper: BP2