Connecticut
Supreme Court
|
Plaintiff, vs. Ms. Bysiewicz
et al,
ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Pleedings
and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of
Connecticut |
Dated this 2nd of November 2008
________________________
“In regards to the candidate Barack
Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election
Fraud.”
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTS
The facts of this case are best
understood as a chronological series of events. During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for
Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the
U.S. In June 2008, an image of a document
purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live
Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an
official campaign web site for Barack Obama.
(Exhibit X). Table 1 gives the
basic chronology.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
TABLE
1
|
DATE |
EVENT |
|
June 2008 |
Image posted asserting Barack
Obama was a natural born citizen |
|
July 2008 |
Analyses produced by three
computer document experts asserting forgery of official state document. |
|
August 2008 |
|
|
August 2008 |
Phil Berg files suit in
Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate |
|
September 2008 |
Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to
release the birth certificate |
|
October 16, 2008 |
Plaintiff learns of new efforts to compel disclosure at the
state level. |
|
October 24, 2008 |
Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford
Superior Court. Denied pursuant to
9-323. |
|
Oct. 27-31, 2008 |
Plaintiff prepares and files with
Connecticut Supreme Court. |
Suspicions were immediately aroused
when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation
was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to
whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the
version of the birth certificate useful
in answering the question.
See exhibits V,W,X.Y
Note that the
“Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.
Note that that
worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born
overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting.
Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail
for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able
bodies supporters purported to the public that this “Certification” document
was proof that he was born in Hawaii
and therefore, “Natural Born.”
The exhibits V-Y before the court
make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands
for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date
have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama
on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the
same document most little league teams require to join their team. The brick wall is preposterous, so
undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request
that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious
magnitude.
That Mr. Obama has steadfastly
refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and
repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.
LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as
the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters
from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?
The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to
the plaintiff:
“…I do not have
the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that
candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that
effect.”
She also asserts:
“Likewise,
neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of
Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility
to run for the office of President of the United States. Because this is a matter prescribed in the
Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures
in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential
candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to
U.S. Congressional action…”
Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of
State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible
for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national
election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to
act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of
fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating
fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!
Silence constitutes an implied
representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will
operate as an estoppel.
"Silence
can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or
where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S.
v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424
F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
2) Does the Connecticut Supreme
Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election
fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?
Plaintiff asserts that precedent set
in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional
District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994)) provides guidance to the court that they may
act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.
From Connecticut
Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original
Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D
Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice
“Except for the complaint,
the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original
actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in federal
election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite
a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”
Clearly the Supreme court of
Connecticut may if justified direct the
Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as
would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.
HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that
Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential
election fraud at the national level.
It neither authorizes nor prohibits.
In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal
Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut
Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original
Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot
controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for
electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to
determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at
the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office
of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of
electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled
election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on
the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective
state at the Electoral College.
State law
determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual
fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of
not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for
President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and
promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates;
in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the
Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with
the principles of the U.S. constitution.
When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty
ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for
preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the
state level. The state Supreme Court is
responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S.
Constitution. In particular, Sec.
10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of
State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of
language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the
Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her
constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud
is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction
by her selective choice of words. Hers
is a “sin of omission” argument.
Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate
legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow
from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand
consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged
with action.
There are at least four statutes
that set forth the duties of the Secretary of
State. Plaintiff
bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General
duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. ... The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec.
9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings
and opinions.
The
Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the
Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to
the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise
provided by state statute, the secretary's regulations, declaratory rulings,
instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly
interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries
under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section
shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions
of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully
expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address
situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all
requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital
for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election
Day. She claims no such responsibility,
yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist
and/or has provided no remedy. Despite
popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of
State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair
elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue
that strikes at the heart of fair elections.
Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in
the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must
move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing
such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and
inform the Secretary of State of their findings.
Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and
you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up. That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest. Similarly, if an electoral crime is being
committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do
nothing. If Secretary Bysiewicz is
unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in
the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the
petitions of citizens.
States do not have the right to
promote on the ballot presidential
candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but
that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide
Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent
candidates like Calero. She wishes to
be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce
his authentic birth certificate.
CONCLUSION: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY
I Move that
this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut,
Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified
copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or
appropriate hospital records. If such
reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made
available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of
the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that
candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President
of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section
I;
This action is the only legal remedy
available for Connecticut voters.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cort Wrotnowski
34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024
425-698-7084
VERIFICATION
I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff
in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint
for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein
are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
EXHIBITS
V Exhibit V Hawaii_Law - To Get a
Certification.doc
W Exhibit
W Legal Difference Hawaii1-2.jpg
X Exhibit X Obama.jpg
Y Exhibit Y Typical.jpg
EXHIBIT V “To Get a Certification”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
[§338-17.8]
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon
application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of
health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been
submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual
while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the
Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year
immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal
residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the
director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt
any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to
prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any
further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth
certificate.
(c) The fee for each
application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to
chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
SEEC Duties
Sec. 9-7b. (Formerly
Sec. 9-368b). State Elections Enforcement Commission's duties and powers. (a) The State Elections
Enforcement Commission shall have the following duties and powers:
(1) To make investigations on its own
initiative or with respect to statements filed with the commission by the
Secretary of the State or any town clerk, or upon written complaint under oath
by any individual, with respect to alleged violations of any provision of the
general statutes relating to any election or referendum, any primary held
pursuant to section 9-423, 9-425 or 9-464 or any primary held pursuant to a
special act, and to hold hearings when the commission deems necessary to
investigate violations of any provisions of the general statutes relating to
any such election, primary or referendum, and for the purpose of such
hearings the commission may administer oaths, examine witnesses and receive
oral and documentary evidence, and shall have the power to subpoena witnesses
under procedural rules the commission shall adopt, to compel their attendance
and to require the production for examination of any books and papers which the
commission deems relevant to any matter under investigation or in question. In
connection with its investigation of any alleged violation of any provision of
chapter 145, or of any provision of section 9-359 or section 9-359a, the
commission shall also have the power to subpoena any municipal clerk and to
require the production for examination of any absentee ballot, inner and outer
envelope from which any such ballot has been removed, depository envelope
containing any such ballot or inner or outer envelope as provided in sections
9-150a and 9-150b and any other record, form or document as provided in section
9-150b, in connection with the election, primary or referendum to which the
investigation relates. In case of a refusal to comply with any subpoena issued
pursuant to this subsection or to testify with respect to any matter upon which
that person may be lawfully interrogated, the superior court for the judicial
district of Hartford, on application of the commission, may issue an order
requiring such person to comply with such subpoena and to testify; failure to
obey any such order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt
thereof. In any matter under investigation which concerns the operation or
inspection of or outcome recorded on any voting machine, the commission may
issue an order to the municipal clerk to impound such machine until the
investigation is completed;
(12)
To inspect reports filed with the Secretary of the State and with town
clerks pursuant to chapter 155 and refer to the Chief State's Attorney evidence
bearing upon any violation of law therein if such violation was committed
knowingly and willfully;
(13) To intervene in any action brought
pursuant to the provisions of sections 9-323, 9-324, 9-328 and 9-329a upon
application to the court in which such action is brought when in the opinion of
the court it is necessary to preserve evidence of possible criminal violation
of the election laws;
(14) To adopt and publish regulations
pursuant to chapter 54 to carry out the provisions of section 9-7a, this
section, chapter 155 and sections 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive; to issue upon
request and publish advisory opinions in the Connecticut Law Journal upon the
requirements of chapter 155, and to make recommendations to the General
Assembly concerning suggested revisions of the election laws;
From: a book
titled Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter
titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Section 10.17 Procedure
(a) Rules of
Practice
Except for the
complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in
original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in
federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will
expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute (For the procedure in
original proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court, see generally WRIGHT,
MILLER & COOPER at sec. 4054; STERN, GRESSMAN & SHAPIRO, SUPREME COURT
PRACTICE, sec. 10.7 to 10.13 (th ed., 1993)
In view of the
nature of the proceeding and the need for prompt action, responsive pleadings
and formal discovery would seem too time-consuming and ill-advised (In original
matters where time is not a crucial factor, the usual rules of practice should
apply where appropriate. See U.S. Sup. CT.R. 17.2). Most, if not
all, information pertaining to the conduct of an election is public information
and available to the parties. If additional information is needed by a
party and is not voluntarily forthcoming, an application to the justices for
disclosure or production would seem warranted. In their discretion,
the justices could order such action as they deem justified under the
circumstances.
By statute,
the justices may, "if sufficient reason is shown", order any voting
machine to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened; they may also a
recount of votes cast, including absentee ballots (C.G.S. 9-323).
Without any
express statutory authority, the court has appointed a "supervisor"
to conduct a recount of paper and absentee ballots. (In re Election of
the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 231 Conn. 602, 618, n.18,
A.2d 79 (1994).