NEW ELECTION EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO: Can A Clerk Overrule The Supreme Court?

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email by Leo Donofrio 12/31/2020

NEW ELECTION EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO: Can A Clerk Overrule The Supreme Court?

But first a recap of previous failed legal maneuvers concerning the election…

Somebody please tell President Trump’s election lawyers there’s a federal statute – 3 U.S.C. § 1 – which requires all elections for Presidential Electors to be completed on Election Day. Then tell his lawyers – and the lawyers for Texas who failed to cite it properly – that 3 U.S.C. § 2 only applies when 3 U.S.C. § 1 is violated. Texas failed to mention 3 U.S.C. § 1 in their brief, so how could Texas rely on 3 U.S.C. § 2, which states:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

The day prescribed by law was November 3rd. Multiple States failed to choose electors on that day. Texas failed to invoke 3 U.S.C. § 1 for a violation of federal law. Instead, Texas tried to use 3 U.S.C. § 2 to remedy a usurpation of state law. And in doing so, Texas made it easy for SCOTUS to slap them down as the Court determined that Texas had no right to tell other States how to choose electors:

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Had Texas invoked 3 U.S.C. § 1, SCOTUS would have been forced to address a usurpation of Congressional power enumerated specifically in the Constitution to mandate the exact time when Presidential Electors must be chosen. The Defendant States extended federal Election Day in violation of federal law. That created an unfair playing field which caused a violation of equal protection for all voters in states that did play fair in choosing electors on Election Day. The Constitution gives the States plenary authority over every aspect except the time of choosing electors, which is under plenary authority of Congress. See the difference?

And hey now, 3 U.S.C. § 1 was enacted for the core purpose of stopping election fraud. And there’s a SCOTUS unanimous decision from 1997 – FOSTER v. LOVE – wherein the Supreme Court stated that federal Election Day statutes were specifically designed to stop election fraud.

This 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court held that an election is “the combined actions of voters and officials” to make a selection of a winner on Election Day. Not in the middle of the night the day after; a week later; a month later. No. The election must be decided on Election Day. Read the case. Listen to the oral argument.

Were the elections in Pennsylvania and the other swing States decided on November 3rd, the day prescribed by law? No. And yet not one of the cases brought to fix this election disaster has mentioned 3 U.S.C. § 1 or the unanimous holding in the Foster case. None but mine that is. And mine has been sabotaged by the Supreme Court.

Below are links to the papers I filed on December 3rd and 4th with the United States Supreme Court. The Clerk’s Office sat on my papers until December 23rd, and then refused to file the case. The Clerk backdated a letter to me on December 17th, but waited until December 23rd to email it, despite multiple update requests and correspondence between the Clerk’s Office and myself. Supreme Court Rule 39.3 requires the Clerk to give Pro Se parties “due allowance”. This due allowance thing apparently works the exact opposite way it’s supposed to. Trust me on this.

In his judicial opinion, Clerk Scott Harris overruled multiple United States Supreme Court precedents allowing citizens to name States in actions that were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, when the litigants did not ask for monetary damages or injunctive relief, just like in my case. Not only is the Clerk’s ruling illegal, it’s obviously wrong and counter to prior precedents of the Court. He has effectively overruled multiple SCOTUS decisions. This is usurpation, and it’s in your face America.

THE NEW EMERGENCY APPLICATION

On December 26th, I forwarded a new Emergency Application to Justice Alito to stay the usurpation of judicial authority by Clerk Scott Harris in denying to docket my case. (I have embedded that Emergency Application below. Please read it now.)

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/31/new-election-emergency-application-to-justice-alito-can-a-clerk-overrule-the-supreme-court/

Below are links to my initial filings, and my new Emergency Application to Justice Alito is embedded for your review:

Donofrio v Pennsylvania, Et al – Bill of Complaint

Donofrio v. Pennsylvania, Et al – Legal Argument

Link to Emergency Applicationn on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/489502194/Emergency-Application-To-Justice-Alito-12-26-20

[bigheadfred]

I overrule the SCOTUS all the time. No one listens. 

[roamer_1]

I overrule the SCOTUS all the time. No one listens. 

I just go out on the porch and flip a giant bird in the direction of DC. And that's a full fingered bird, dammit. Like I learned in Chicago - Not that undecided half-fingered bird folks out west do.

Nobody cares. Except my neighbor one time. Till I told him it was for DC and not for him. So he let me up. And since then he joins me in that, every night from his own porch.