Count Us Out

Why Leo Donofrio was FORCED to continue speaking to public: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION.

via Leo Donofrio

Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
 
Today, 11/21/2008, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008″ before all nine Supreme Court Justices.
I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file – not including all relevant documents – will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized. A copy of the official complaint – by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form – will be uploaded to this blog shortly.

Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
 
[MEDIA UPDATE:] 11/21/2008, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case. Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public. Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale 11/21/2008 at 9:00 PM EST. Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere on 11/21/2008 at 11:00 PM EST as well.

Here is the link to the archived Plains Radio Show hosted by Ed Hale and Caren.  You will also hear about another lawsuit out of Connecticut, Cort Wrotnowski who is the first guest on the show.

http://www.plainsradio.com/show/Voice%2011-21-08.mp3

 

Here is the streaming link of the rebroadcast on Overnight AM: http://www.lanlamphere.com/audio/livejava.php

Please copy and share this EVERYWHERE!!

Here is Count Us Out link to Cort Wrotnowski’s lawsuit:

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/cort-wrotnowski-of-connecticut-vs-secretary-of-state/

 

Here is the link to our copy of the post Leo asked folks to look at (unfortunately, we didn’t copy the documents/sources he had on his page.  We won’t make that mistake again!):

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/us-supreme-court-takes-extraordinary-expedited-action-in-fast-tracking-nj-citizen-suit-challenging-08-presidential-election/

 

Contact: Steve Marquis in Washington State
 Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org

Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org

 

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/all-known-lawsuits-regarding-obama-citizenship-birth-certificate-eligibility-to-become-us-president/

November 22, 2008 - Posted by count us out | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. [...] JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT … JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION. … [...]

    Pingback by Presidential Race On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT … | November 22, 2008

  2. Guten Tag! 6. April 2009

    Dear US Constitutional Personality(ies) in Bloggerland, USA

    I am writing you because I believe that you have the best capabilities to answer my questions. You have better connections, resources, and experience than I have. In addition, I have written a number of US constitutional law professors in the United States of America. I have not received an answer from them. I shall keep their names a secret, for the present at least.

    I am from Germany. I have no background in (US constitutional)law. Nevertheless, I have some questions concerning the breaking of the law of the Constitution of the United States of America. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The questions are:

    1. Is the breaking of the law of the US Constitution a crime?

    2. If so, what kind of crime is it? Would it fall under misdemeanor?, criminal statute? civil statute? Are the breakings of the laws in the different Articles of the Constitution different types of crimes?

    3. Can the Supreme Court of the United States take the initiative on its own and investigate and find someone guilty of breaking the law of the US Constitution and impose a penalty?

    4. If a penalty is imposed, what authority is there to make sure that the penalty is executed?

    5. If a person intentionally breaks the law of the US Constitution but is never accused of doing so, is that person still a non-criminal. My reasoning of logic tells me no. That person is and will always be a criminal ad infinitum. We can devise an example of the logic as follows:

    Our major premise is: All X are Y. This being can never be undone.
    Our minor premise is: All Z are X. This being can never be undone.
    Our conclusion is: All Z are Y. This being can never be undone.

    The relationships of these beings cannot be changed. Never! Not now! Not in the future! Not retroactively!

    It is a law of Nature that is just as true as the sum of one plus one is two.
    This will always be the case into infinity.
    There is no law that can break this rule of logic.
    It is the law of Nature (God).

    According to the philosophy of logic the person is and will always be guilty.
    Now for a practical application:

    As an example that pertains to the eligibility status of the President of the United States,
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution states that

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America is a public document. It is not a secret document. The power comes from “We the people … .” Therefore, the requirements of the Articles of the US Constitution are public and not secret.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 thus states that along with the age and resident requirements, the other absolutely necessary requirement to become President of the United States of America is that the candidate must be natural born. In every law book and all theories of law that I have researched, natural born means those born in the country, of parents who are both citizens of the country. In the case of the United States of America, the child’s parents must both be American citizens when the child is born in order that the child can meet the qualifications to candidate as a future President of the United States of America. My information is that Barack Hussein Obama’s mother was not of legal age to possess United States of America citizenship when she gave birth to her son, and that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a Kenyan/British citizen at the time of the son’s birth. Therefore, the place of birth is not relevant, only the natural born qualification is relevant.

    My logic and the logic of the Law of Nature and the Supreme Law of the Land, tells me:

    - THE MAJOR PREMISE IS: a person must be eligible to be President of the United States.
    - THE MINOR PREMISE IS: Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States is not identified (established, shown to be true, demonstrated, manifested, evinced, documented, backed up, supported, upheld, sustained, affirmed, confirmed or any other synonym).

    - THE CONCLUSION IS: The only conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States of America.

    6. How can Barack Hussein Obama be President of the United States of America when the logic of the situation says otherwise and the Supreme Law of the Land says otherwise?

    Surely this cannot be a matter of Constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Law of the Land is explicit and in this matter leaves no leeway for interpretation. A candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America is either natural born or is not.

    7. What are the legal situations concerning all laws, appointments, presidential decrees that Barack Hussein Obama has signed? If he is not President of the United States of America because both the logic of the situation and the Supreme Law of the Land say otherwise, how can they be legal? It seems to me that they cannot.

    8. Furthermore, why should any of the following government officials who took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America: elected representatives, senators, law officials, governors, state representatives, state senators accept the laws, nominees, and decrees as signed by Barack Hussein Obama as being official? There is no legality involved in his signature.

    9. Finally, the logic above and the logic of the Supreme Law of the Land tell me that Barack Hussein Obama has committed a criminal offense. If Barack Hussein Obama remains President of the United States of America, does this not mean that regardless of what time in the future, indeed, at any time in the future, Barack Hussein Obama is still a criminal? Ergo: Once a criminal always a criminal?

    10. Moreover, since Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement, and he knows it, the violation of the Constitution was intended. When he swore the presidential oath that is dictated by the Constitution, he swore to uphold the Constitution. Was he swearing to uphold his own violation of the Supreme Law of the Land or was he swearing to uphold the legality of the Constitution? He was swearing to uphold the legality of the Constitution and he knew that he had committed a crime by breaking this reality. Because Barack Hussein Obama is not indicting himself for breaking the law of the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is placing himself above the Supreme Law of the Land. This in itself is against the law of the Constitution. Is this action not considered a high crime against the United States of America?

    11. If one article of the Constitution of the United States can be broken and go non-punishable, why cannot all articles be broken and thus make the whole Constitution null and void?

    12. If the breaking of the law of the US Constitution is not a crime and non-punishable, then what is the sense of having a Constitution?

    What is/are your opinion(s)?

    Thank you for your time and understanding.

    Respectfully,

    Frederick William Dame, a person from Germany who can find no answers in Germany.

    Comment by Frederick William Dame | April 7, 2009


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »