Obama Citizenship

On Monday Nov. 17, 2008, the following letter and ten copies of my original "Application for Emergency Stay" will be submitted to William K. Suter, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court in support of my renewed application for an emergency stay of the 2008 national election as per United States Supreme Court Rule 22.4:

4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon.  Thereafter... the party making an application... may renew it to any other Justice... Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29.  (Emphasis added.)

Out of respect for the United States Supreme Court, I have decided not to hold a press conference there on Monday, Nov. 17.  Instead, I will be doing radio and press interviews.  I will update this blog as those interviews become confirmed. 

LETTER TO WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT:

No. 08A407

ATTN:
WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Office of the Clerk
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

Re:  United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

FROM:

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., Pro Se
PO Box 93
East Brunswick
New Jersey, 08816

November 14th, 2008

LETTER TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CLERK, WILLIAM K. SUTER, AS MANDATED BY SUPREME COURT RULE 22.4, REGARDING RENEWED APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY, SUCH RENEWED APPLICATION WILL NOW BE ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AS PER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULE 22.4

Dear Mr. Suter, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court,

     According to Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I now renew this emergency application for a stay to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of letter addressed to the "Clerk" - as per Rule 22.4.  Since this stay application pertains to a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying similar relief below, this stay application was originally submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter, Circuit Justice for the 3rd Circuit, on November 3, 2008, and was denied by Justice Souter on November 6, 2008. (See attached, 1) 

     Due to the very unorthodox treatment bestowed upon this case by stay clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, it is of the utmost importance that I recapitulate the extraordinary communications and actions taken by Mr. Bickell, who has so egregiously handled this matter by having taken it upon himself to make improper and incorrect substantive judgments of law thereby usurping the authority of the Supreme Court and its honorable Justices.  This letter will now address the specific errors Mr. Bickell has made as such errors have caused certain damage to my case and cause.  I respectfully request that the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas be given a copy of this letter along with the renewed emergency application for a stay.  

     First, I would point out that the computerized Docket for this case has been the subject of no less than three separate entries (See attached, 2-4) despite the fact that, up until this resubmission letter, no other papers have been filed other than the original application for emergency stay.  The first Docket entry incorrectly listed the stay application as an "application for injunction", despite the fact that the original application states clearly on the cover page, "APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY". 

     Mr. Bickell refused to recognize the nature of this pleading as a "stay" and therefore he did not follow the Rules which govern stay procedure.  Specifically,  Mr. Bickell was required, under Rule 22.1 to "transmit it promptly" to Justice Souter, which Mr. Bickell promised to do in a 7 minute phone conversation I had with him on Nov. 3 at 3:50 PM just after I filed the original application.  Not only did Mr. Bickell fail to transmit the Application promptly, despite its bold face cover declaring it was an emergency stay application, Mr. Bickell failed to transmit it at all thereby disposing of it on his own volition by denying the application as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice.

     During a conversation with Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6, he first informed me that he had chosen not to pass on my stay application to Justice Souter because he had made a substantive judgment of law that my stay application was improper in that it was his opinion I had not requested a stay in the lower courts, and therefore, according to Mr. Bickell, Supreme Court Rule 23.3 prevented me from requesting a stay in the US Supreme Court.  Mr. Bickell is both factually and legally wrong.      

     Mr. Bickell was factually wrong because I specifically did request a stay as to the 2008 election in my initial Complaint (See attached, 5) filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey - Appellate Division, where my request for emergency relief was denied on October 30, 2008, after a four day emergency litigation which generated a complex seventy-five page appendix to a subsequent motion requesting the same relief in the NJ Supreme Court filed by me on October 31, exactly one day after the Appellate Division denied such emergency relief.

     Mr. Bickell did not have the original Complaint in his possession for review, nor did he have the appendix, so I don't know how he could have ever come to the conclusion that I had not asked for a stay below.  Furthermore, defendant-respondent - Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was represented by the New Jersey Attorney General.  Their reply brief to my initial Complaint specifically argues against a stay being granted on page 2 of the brief (See attached, 6):

"...[B]ecause the relief requested would upset the orderly conduct of the upcoming general election, the application for a stay should be denied."

     Furthermore, Mr. Bickell's naive misunderstanding of Rule 23.3 clearly exhibits why a clerk such as he should not be attempting to play Supreme Court Justice.  Rule 23.3 does not bar the entertaining of a stay application, regardless of whether a stay was requested in the lower courts, when the stay request is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court under "extraordinary circumstances" as was the case in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).  In that case, a stay was granted by Justice O'Connor even though no stay had been requested in the lower courts.  Surely, a stay of the national election qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances". 

     Regardless, this was a genuine issue of substantive law - to be decided by a US Supreme Court Justice - and not by a subordinate clerk seeking to substitute his judgment for that of the US Supreme Court Justices, all of whom were appointed by Presidents and approved by the Senate.  Accordingly, the lower court pleadings and orders of denial in this case pertain directly to a "stay" as the relief requested was of exactly the same nature in the Appellate Division, the NJ Supreme Court and in the Emergency Stay Application now before the US Supreme Court. 

     The order denying my request for Emergency relief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, handed down on Friday October 31, 2008, by the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long (See attached, 7) stated:

  "This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to RULE 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."

N.J. COURT RULE 2:9-8 states:

"2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters

When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court..."

     Justice Long made it clear that this order was directly related to the Appellate Division case wherein I specifically requested a stay pertaining to the 2008 election.  The case, In re Moser, 69 F.3d 690 (3rd Cir. 1995), testifies to the argument I made to Mr. Bickell that a stay is injunctive in nature.  US Supreme Court jurisdiction was also appropriate as an exercise of mandamus authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).  This was reiterated in Berry v. Francis, 1998 FED App. 0158P (6th Cir.) 

     Moreover, Supreme Court Rule 22.6 demands that:

"The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."  (Emphasis added.)

     In a phone conversation I had with Mr. Bickell, he advised me that since he had disposed of my case on his own volition, such "disposition" was not the same kind of "disposition" recognized by Rule 22.6, and as such, it was his opinion that he had no duty to inform me - by appropriately speedy means - or any means whatsoever, of the actual disposition of my Application.  Essentially, Mr. Bickell illegally substituted his legal judgment for that of a US Supreme Court Justice as well as for the judgment of the actual Rules of Court. 

     On Nov. 6, after much arguing with Mr. Bickell, he eventually agreed to Docket my case, but only after trying to convince me to let it go.  He stated, "Justice Souter will deny it...Justice Thomas will also deny it."  Does Mr. Bickell have the authority to announce possible decisions of Supreme Court Justices?  No, he does not.

     The next morning, Nov. 7, I checked the US Supreme Court Docket and was shocked to see that Mr. Bickell had, despite our conversation, incorrectly Docketed the case as an "Application for injunction" filed on November 6.  (See attached, 2.)  The date was obviously wrong as the case was filed and stamped at the security gate at the US Supreme Court on November 3 , not Nov. 6.  Furthermore, this fraudulent Docket was entered in the system by Mr. Bickell even though, by this time, I'd had multiple conversations with him about this case starting on Nov. 3 just minutes after it had been filed.  And the stay application clearly states on the cover page that it is a "stay" application not an application for injunction.

     I left three messages on Mr. Bickell's voice mail on the morning of Nov. 7 demanding that he correct the Docket for this case and and threatening to bring legal action against him specifically for willfull misconduct.  Later that morning, I checked the automated Docket again and found that the Docket entry had been altered to reflect that the case was then filed as a Stay application submitted to Justice Souter on Nov. 3.  (See attached, 3)  But the Docket entry was also now reflecting that Justice Souter had denied the Stay application on Nov. 6.  I don't see how, earlier on the morning of Nov. 7, the Docket could reflect that the application was for a pending injunction application submitted to Justice Souter - no disposition listed - then suddenly, a few hours later, the Docket retroactively shows a disposition of the stay application having been denied on Nov. 6.  I cannot understand how that was possible and I am officially requesting an explanation.

     On Nov. 12, I noticed that Mr. Bickell had failed to include the NJ Supreme Court's review of this matter in the "Lower Ct:" section of the US Supreme Court Docket for this case.  I phoned Mr. Bickell, and again, he tried to make specious substantive legal arguments thereto.  Eventually, one day later, Mr. Bickell was forced to correct the Docket, once again, to reflect that this case had been through both the NJ Appellate Division and the NJ Supreme Court.  (See attached, 4.)  This was a very important correction because having orders from both of the lower Courts proves that the US Supreme Court is the final jurisdiction available to me for emergency relief.

     Furthermore, I've repetitively tried to explain to Mr. Bickell that my stay application relies on the procedural history of Bush v. Gore wherein the emergency application for a stay in that case was treated by the Supreme Court as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari.  Bush V. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98:

"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate.  On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari."  (Emphasis added.)

      I now renew the emergency application for a stay to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as per Rule 22.4.

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se