BREAKING NEWS
CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS
by Bob Vernon, Honest American News – Plains Radio Network
On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 – Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey – was updated to show that the “emergency stay application” to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.” At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court.
In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone. Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference.
Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm – by direct contact with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office – that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court.
On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio’s emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008. Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference. Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled:
A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
In that document, on page 3, it advises:
“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.”
Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference. Mr. Donofrio was correct.
Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas.
Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight. See Plainsradio.com for details.
Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas
Ted
on Dec 2nd, 2008
@ 5:10 am:
“Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!
Wayne
on Dec 3rd, 2008
@ 12:09 am:
I’ve linked to and quoted your post in Barry Soetoro Watch on Jeremiah Films site.
richCares
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 2:21 pm:
hey TED you are darn lucky that there is no ban on stupidity in the constitution
richCares
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 2:25 pm:
look at Donfrio Docket, take note that Respondants Lawyers are not listed
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
why is that?
hint: DISTRIBUTED for Conference doesn’t mean what you think it does!
richCares
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 2:29 pm:
“anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!”
see court link above, letter Received Dec 1, did not delay conferance, come on at least check things out ,before spouting nonsense! Is that too much to ask?
doctorbulldog
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 10:12 pm:
reichCares,
Um… It WOULD have delayed the conference had Wrotnowski not discovered that it had been sent to the Anthrax lab. He personally hand delivered 10 copies to insure it would not be delayed. Not an easy task when you consider Mr. Wrotnowski was in Connecticut at the time he discovered this…
See article HERE
Once the copies were entered into the system, apparently, the original filing date of Nov. 29 was retroactively applied to the copies.
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 10:43 pm:
Just in, Supreme court will not hear Donfrio case, what’s next wingnuts?
“Um… It WOULD have delayed ”
I said it did not delay and it didn’t
anyway this segment is now over!
doctorbulldog
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 10:49 pm:
reichCares,
One down, sixteen to go…
Cheers
doctorbulldog
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 11:02 pm:
reichCares,
P.S. – Could you please provide a link, because the last thing I have found on the net says the full orders from the SCOTUS aren’t due until Monday December 8th, 2008.
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 11:30 pm:
only 2 cases were considered today Dec 5
you can see which 2 at courts blog site
Donfrio wasn’one of them
sorry, have a good weekend!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
doctorbulldog
on Dec 5th, 2008
@ 11:33 pm:
reichCares,
So, the Supreme Court is mum and we will have to wait until Monday…
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 6th, 2008
@ 4:13 am:
list of all conferences to be discussed by Supreme Court on 12/05 and 12/08
please carefully note NO DONOFRIO
repeat BO DONOFRIO
Got it?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conferences-of-12508-121208/
doctorbulldog
on Dec 6th, 2008
@ 4:33 am:
reichCares,
The operative sentence is:
“…that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.”
Like I said, the Supreme Court is remaining mum about this and we will have to wait until Monday. Until then, everything is just speculation.
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 6th, 2008
@ 5:56 am:
Cheers
no Donofrio,
“…that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.” and no Donfrio listed, you don’t have to wait till Monday, the Donfrio case ist not any where on that list for 12/5 & 12/8
tell me when your bubble bursts on Monday as they do not discuss the case that is not listed OK and speculation says they may discuss a case not on the list!
double Cheers for lack of comprehension!
doctorbulldog
on Dec 6th, 2008
@ 4:04 pm:
reichCares,
Obviously you have me confused with someone who has all his/her hopes on this ONE case…
There will be no bursting of the proverbial bubble if the Supreme Court denies the stay.
But, if I were you, I wouldn’t get too comfortable…
Cheers
doctorbulldog
on Dec 6th, 2008
@ 5:37 pm:
There could be many reasons the Court didn’t issue its notice on Friday.
The most logical, whether the decision is for or against, would be that the Court is writing an opinion. The two orders handed down on Friday have no opinions attached. More than 90% of the cases SCOTUS looks at are denied certiorari.
The odds are against any case getting that far. But no more than that can be said.
Anything else is just guessing.
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 3:17 pm:
08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
doctorbulldog
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 3:35 pm:
reichCares,
Thank you.
Cheers
patricksperry
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 4:10 pm:
Well… If I am reading this correctly, then this issue is dead.
Think maybe the good folks at usasurvivor, prison planet, et al are onto something..?
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 5:03 pm:
“We The People” foundation claiming that National Press Club will hold a meeting Dec 8 1:30 addressing the Donofrio court case, claiming that Donorio will be there to answer questions.
A few points
1. it is not a National Press Club Event, We The People merely rented a room and are portraying it as a National Press Club event to gain credibilty
2. Donofrio not part of it
Here’s Donofrio press release
*******************************************
DONOFRIO NOT INVOLVED WITH NATIONAL PRESS CLUB EVENT
ON DEC. 8, 2008
ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.
I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.
Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide. The event has nothing to do with me.
World Net Daily has their story wrong. I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event.
*******************************************
A very A common statement is “World Net Daily has their story wrong”, no matter how often made, their readers still buy tin foils hats.
wearing a tin foil hat is an addiction, hard to break the habit
No Compromises
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 5:17 pm:
Knock it off richhates!
Your saying that world net daily readers wear tin foil hats? Wow, that’s a leap. Anybody who watches the nightly news with Katie Couric wears tin foil hats. Anyone who religiously reads the Daily barf Kos and Alex Jones, listens to “progressive” radio, wears tin foils hats! I don’t know if WND has their story wrong, but I would hope that you would accuse the MSM of having 99% of their stories wrong!
The fact that they launched Obama’s presidential campaign for him, got him elected with their bias and soft ball questions–wait, they didn’t ask him any questions–ought to alarm you! Instead, you are jumping for joy when you should be concerned about the Goebbels style take over of the American press!
doctorbulldog
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 5:27 pm:
The next case that has the best chance of being heard is Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State.
Given the long list of challenges lining up and the growing number of Americans who are doubting Obama’s right to the Presidency, it is odd that the Supreme Court doesn’t just do itself a favor and have a hearing in at least one of the cases. That way, they can rule in favor of Obama and wash their hands of the whole affair…
Perhaps the Donofrio case was just too cut and dry—in that Obama is clearly not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by the SCOTUS in 1939—so they are waiting for a case that is easier to rule against. Thus, eliminating the other cases that are pending…
As much as I hate to say it, the Berg case looks to be the easiest to rule against. So, if the SCOTUS decides to hear that one, we are in for a circle jerk…
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 5:44 pm:
“Knock it off richhates! ”
World Net Daily has been in the forefront of this issue claiming it’s a forgery
What about WND stating
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there”
Link to archived article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
after publishing this, their wingnut readers complained, they didn’t want to hear “authentic” so story was delete and WND went back to bashing the BC
is that good Christian ethics
explain this dear tin foil hat wearer!
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:03 pm:
WND reported that Linda Lingle, Gov of Hawaii ordered Obama’s BC sealed, that was false, Lingle, a Republican, did no such thing. There are thousands of examples like this for you tin foil hat wearers. Keep believing!
No Compromises
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:05 pm:
As usual richhates, you make inflammatory remarks never backing up anything you say with facts. Show me where
after publishing this, their wingnut readers complained,
“they didn’t want to hear “authentic” so story was delete and WND went back to bashing the BC”
Who is “they”? what christian ethics are you talking about? I’m sure you don’t care since you display none of your own.
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:35 pm:
“Who is “they”? what christian ethics are you talking about? I’m sure you don’t care since you display none of your own.”
dear birgt intelligent person, please show where WND retracted their “it was authentic” story, would so nice if you did that instead of bleating nonsense, also show where they retracted Gov Lingle false story.
by the way did you like WND claiming BC was authentic? you don’t have to answer that, keep your self respect
doctorbulldog
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:43 pm:
reichCares,
From the Honolulu Advertiser:
“Circuit Judge Bert Ayabe last month dismissed the suit filed in state court here, upholding arguments from Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration that birth records are confidential under state law.”
Ordered BC sealed, or just kept the BC from being released? It’s all just semantic slicing; because in the end, it is unobtainable to anyone other than Obama or his immediate family…
Interestingly enough, Lingle (originally from Missouri—which Obama did not carry during the elections) was very critical of Obama’s claims to Hawaii…
Since NC’s SPAM filter likes to dump me if I have more than one link in a comment, I’ll link to that article in my next comment..
No Compromises
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:45 pm:
hey troll,
if you don’t cool yourself you’re gonna get moderated. I haven’t made any claims about WND, you have. At this point, I don’t care what WND has or hasn’t done.
I’ve had it with your insults so self govern and stop with the insults. You can have any opinion you want, but when you insult others who disagree that’s when this blog bouncer steps in.
One more insult to any reader on this blog and you are out! Understand?
doctorbulldog
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:45 pm:
CLICK HERE
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting…
Cheers
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:51 pm:
doctorbulldog thanks for the link, many are not aware that Lind Lingle is a Republican and did not support Obama.
richCares
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:55 pm:
I’ve had it with your insults
no insults were made, no sense coming back to a blog with your attitude
good bye (forever)
No Compromises
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 6:57 pm:
goodbye rich. As a reminder check your very first comment. You had to start it off with insults! and you ended it with insults. People are sick and tired of those who disagree insulting those they are in disagreement with, why not just have a conversation about our disagreements and why and leave it at that? That is not a lot to ask for!
onna
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 7:30 pm:
can you update your article, case was denied
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
No Compromises
on Dec 8th, 2008
@ 7:52 pm:
Onna, Plz click on the title of this blog and it will take you to the home page with updated articles. thanks. ~NC