Obama Citizenship

Schneller v. Cortes: Motion Denied, Writ Dismissed ? with Opinion

By Phil

According to the Supreme Court’s Docket (see the Order here), James Schneller, Plaintiff pro se in Schneller v. Cortes, had his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied and the petition for a writ of Certioriari dismissed in the first opinionated order given by the Supreme Court in any eligibility case submitted to the Justices for consideration:

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.

Most observers will understand that the Court dismissing the petition for Certiorari simply means that the Supreme Court (1) does not wish to hear this case for whatever reason and that (2) the lower Court’s decision is binding. The “in forma pauperis” legal term basically means that the petitioner is asking to be able to proceed forward with this case by paying as few Court costs as possible.

In fact, according to the linked Wikipedia, these kinds of requests are hardly rare at the Supreme Court level…

Approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis.^[2][3] Most of those petitioners are prisoners.^[2] Petitions that appear on the Supreme Court’s in forma pauperis docket are substantially less likely to be granted review than those on the paid docket.^[4]

IFP status is usually granted in connection to pro se petitioners, but the two concepts are separate and distinct.

This could very well have been the reason why Associate Justice Stevens dissented from the majority opinion. Basically, the Court’s majority opinion is that Mr. Schneller is not to submit anything further to the Court — and the Clerk’s Office is to ignore — concerning civil (noncriminal) matters unless the appropriate fees are paid.

Let this be a lesson to those who wish to pursue eligibility at the Supreme Court: be prepared to pay any and all fees required by the Court!

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
• Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
• Obama Citizenship Facts
• Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
• Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on June 27, 2009 (boomark / email).