(cyberattack deleted – recovered from cache)
March 18, 2009
UPDATED: I decided to separate the two posts up into explanation and Leo Donofrio’s post. See links at the end.
November 13, 2008 post by Leo Donofrio [Emphasis added]
Donofrio v Wells
Docket # 08A407
Donofrio was suing the New Jersey Secretary of State for not making sure barry was constitutionally eligible based on dual citizenship/allegiance at birth from the British citizenship (Kenya under colonial rule) conferred on him by his father, before he was placed on the ballot.
As of 9:53 AM, November 13, 2008, the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 has still not been updated to reflect the fact that the case…
Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
… now before the US Supreme Court comes directly from a final decision as to the emergency matter issued by the highest court in New Jersey which is the Supreme Court Of New Jersey. Mr. Bickell has consistently attempted to stop this case from being docketed properly. And in doing so Mr. Bickell has subverted and defiled the esteemed Rules of the US Supreme Court, particularly Rules 22 and 23.
Mr. Bickell knows that, for my case to have proper standing before the US Supreme Court, I am required to exhaust all of my lower court options, which I have done. My case was originally brought in the NJ Appelllate Division where it was delayed, subjected to misconduct and eventually denied on October 30. Then on October 31, I brought the same action to the NJ Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also denied my application for Emergency relief, but in doing so, the NJ Supreme Court, by the hand of the Honorable Justice Virginia A Long, relied on “movant’s papers” which contained a Constitutional issue of first impression as to the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (See below.)
Bickell and the docket:
Regardless, after numerous attempts to reason with Mr. Bickell, he still refuses to update the Docket for US Supreme Court case # 08A407 to include any reference to the NJ Supreme Court decision. Instead, Mr. Bickell lists only the Appellate Division reference which is an incomplete record of the procedure of this case.
And in so doing, Mr. Bickell is very aware that any Justice of the Supreme Court who may take an interest in this case might come to an erroneous conclusion that the case is prematurely before the US Supreme Court. This is one of the many dangers inherent in Mr. Bickell’s sabotage of this case.
Mr. Bickell, through his illegal actions, has now taken control of the Docket at the United States Supreme Court and in so doing, Mr. Bickell is operating such Docket under his own brand of martial law. Mr. Bickell’s actions are no less than a declaration of war upon the Rules of Supreme Court practice.
I am calling for Mr. Bickell to be fired from his position and for him to be arrested by the Justice Department for criminal abuse of power and dereliction of duty. Mr. Bickell needs to be put under oath and questioned in a court of law as to the motivations behind his drastic attempt at overthrowing our legal system of justice and to see if there are other conspirators involved with him in this attack on our highest court’s authority.
If this lowly clerk can single-handedly deny justice according to his own whim and deceit, than the highest court in our land is effectively subverted to the cause of injustice. And such a house divided cannot stand. What you are seeing today, via Mr. Bickell’s blatant deceit and judicial treachery, is a direct attempt to change the fabric and ability of justice as we have always known it. This rebellion from the Supreme Court Rules of Court, if allowed to stand, will signal the beginning of the end of our Constitutional form of Government.
If, after having reviewed the documents and legal arguments at this site, you believe, as I do, that Mr. Bickell should be thrown out of his office at the US Supreme Court, then please call the US Supreme Court and speak your mind.
US Supreme Court Clerk’s office: 202-479-3011
Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell: 202-479-3024
Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1
Folks did – Danny lived on to mess with Lightfoot.
10:00 Donofrio comment:
This is an intellectual declaration of war by the Clerk’s office.
Mr. Bickell is a traitor and I imagine he is not alone. Perhaps some may be feeling the truth of this situation, that the US Supreme Court has been invaded. They are making a gambit here that this will blow over and perhaps Mr. Bickell and his posse believe they will be shielded by pardons down the road. Regardless, my documents prove that they are willing to lie, cheat and deceive the public about this case.
There’s an enemy of the people in the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and if this case does nothing else but expose that enemy of “We The People” then this case will have served a noble purpose.
Mr. Danny Bickell, stay clerk of the US Supreme Court, has finally corrected the Docket for US Supreme Court Case No. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, to reflect that this case has come to the US Supreme Court directly from a final order denying emergency relief by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Having this case properly docketed is a major procedural necessity to the case having proper standing to be decided in the US Supreme Court.
Even though it was docketed, he had to still deal with Danny.
Now that the Docket reflects that my case has followed proper procedure through all possible lower court jurisdictions, I will resubmit the application for an emergency stay of the national election to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Supreme Court Rule 22(4) (operating in tandem with Rule 23) gives me the right, by law, to resubmit the Application for Emergency Stay to “any other Justice” once the original stay application has been denied. According to the Docket, and a letter I received from Mr. Danny Bickell, Justice Souter denied the stay application on November 6th.
One wonders if Justice Souter ever even saw it.
So, according to the Rules, I may now resubmit the application to “any other justice.”
However, there is still one issue which must be dealt with before I resubmit the stay application. Rule 22 (4) requires that I write a letter to the Clerk indicating which Justice I am renewing the stay application to. This letter is supposed to go to William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court, but the “stay clerk” is Mr. Danny Bickell and I’m certain that the renewed stay application will go directly through him.
Once the “Clerk” receives it, Rule 22(1) prescribes the following duty to the Clerk in relation thereto:
Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
* 1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief. (Emphasis added.)
This means that the original stay application should have been submitted to Justice Souter on Mon. Nov 3rd, the day I filed it, the day it was stamped. But it wasn’t “transmitted promptly”, it was disposed of promptly by Mr. Bickell, and it was disposed of wrongly. Eventually it was actually transmitted to Justice Souter, but only after I read Mr. Bickell the riot act.
Ponder this; if Mr. Bickell had been intially correct in disposing of the stay application on Monday Nov. 3rd, then why did he eventually Docket it and submit it to Justice Souter on Nov. 6th? The answer is obvious. He was wrong to have disposed of it, and he was wrong to have failed to notify me of such disposition and he’s been wrongly trying to dispose of it in one way or another ever since.
Did Justice Souter actually sign the letter?
I anticipate that Mr. Bickell will be handed my renewed “application for an emergency stay” by interns in the Clerk’s office, even though, technically, according to Rule 22(1) the letter accompanying the application must be addressed to the “Clerk”. The Clerk is “William K Suter”.
Please send Mr. Suter letters indicating that you, as an American citizen, are outraged at the disrespect and sabotage this case, Donofrio v. Wells, US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407, has been subjected to. Mr. Suter’s address is:
William K. Suter, Clerk
United States Supreme Court
Office of the Clerk
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001
Explains the legalese Bickell ignored:
When you write your letters to; Justice Thomas, the other Supreme Court Justices, and Clerk Suter, it would be good to include a paragraph explaining that the case reflects a matter of vital public importance, depends on a genuine Constitutional issue of first impression, is coming directly from the NJ Supreme Court and is relying on the “stay application” precedent issued by the most Honorable Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):
“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.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Bickell failed to recognize the precedent set in that case when he initially refused to pass on my “stay application” to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd. When I spoke to Mr. Bickell on Nov. 6th, he told me my stay application should have come with a “Full Petition for Writ of Certiorari”. It was this decision which delayed Justice. This was a decision of substantive law made by a clerk who subverted the authority of the US Supreme Court. And his decision, despite being an act of direct insubordination, was also legally flawed.
Are these clerks lawyers? If so, are they allowed to have independent thought?
As was done in Bush v. Gore, also a Presidential election case involving an emergency, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recognizing the exigency of the circumstances, decided to relax its formal requirements and instead, the Honorable Court, in granting the Stay, decided to accept the less formal Stay Application as if it were a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and then they granted Certiorari.
This was the precedent I was proceeding under. Had Mr. Bickell followed the Supreme Court Rules, Justice Souter would have received my emergency Stay Application on Monday Nov. 3rd, shortly after 4:30PM. But Mr. Bickell didn’t Docket the case until Nov. 6th, and only after I protested vehemently.
I wonder if the following words were caught on tape:
While arguing with me, Mr. Bickell told me that it didn’t matter what I did or what law I cited, “Justice Souter will just deny it…and Justice Thomas will also deny it.”
According to the Docket and Mr. Bickell’s letter, Justice Souter apparently denied the Stay Application on that same day.
Had Justice Souter denied it on Nov. 3rd instead, and had Mr. Bickell then followed Rule 22(6), which says that I was to be informed of the “disposition” of the case “by appropriately speedy means”, i.e., a phone call, then I could have resubmitted the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas at 9:00 AM on Nov. 4th, Election Day, and since the case was bi-partisan, and at that time there was no winner, Justice Clarence Thomas could have granted the stay, stopped the Election, brought in the whole Court, and decided the “natural born citizen” issue before the voting was done.
I did everything in my power to see that this was the case, and Mr. Bickell did everything in his power to see that this wasn’t the case.
And that’s why your letters are still needed. Mr. Bickell needs to understand that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Court will be aware that this case is on its way to them and that if anybody is going to deny the stay application – “We the People” – demand that it be a genuine US Supreme Court Justice and not a clerk impersonating a Justice.
So if the allegations are true – Danny boy Bickell highjacked the Stay so the election would be official. He does his job, he knows the “first black president” is not going to be deposed after 67M folks voted for him. And barry’s lawyers knew no judge would challenge him and that once Justice Roberts swore barry in it would be over.
The only unknown was the reaction of the non-obamerized American People. And that’s were the pro-barry press came in — to downplay the challenges to his eligibility and to ridicule and attack the “birthers”.
And it seems they got so complacent with the “blond bimbo Russian immigrant dentist woman with the online law degree” that she was able to directly question the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with cameras, keyboards and audio blazing.
Yo, Danny, how goes it?
(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on Taitz – Justice Roberts interaction
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-21) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (video)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 13th)
(3-24) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)