PENNSYLVANIA: COURT TO DENY JUSTICE TO RESIDENTS

Submitted by: Donald Hank

 Jim Schneller's challenges to the nomination petitions of Patrick Meehan and Barack Obama continue.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court prothonotary attempted on March 22, 2012, to permanently end the Schneller campaign's appeal of the Commonwealth Court's denial of the Schneller petition to set aside the nomination petitions of Barack Obama and Rep. Patrick Meehan. Using an order signed by a "staff attorney," the prothonotary declared the appeal quashed because the campaign did not file a brief on 1 1/2 days' notice. Such a time frame is unheard of in Pennsylvania courts and Schneller in fact was skiing in Vermont. Jim has filed a motion for reconsideration of the clerical decision, and all should hope and pray that this motion does not fail - if it does, then the seamiest end ever, to an Obama birth-status case, will have been inflicted. Supreme Court No. 24 MAL 2012, (Commonwealth Court 75 MD 2012.)

The second challenge that Jim is presenting against Obama and Meehan remains pending in the Commonwealth Court. It demands formation of a Committee made up of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General, as provided by the election code when a party or parties seeking nomination have shown intent to errantly control, establish, or overthrow the constitution and the constitutional form of government. The Committee is directly authorized by law to refuse nomination papers of such people or parties.

The suit, Commonwealth Court No. 212 CD 2012 also seeks a setting aside or quo warranto “testing” of Obama’s office, based on lack of status as a natural born citizen, a setting aside or quo warranto review of the Meehan petition because of election code statutes forbidding code violators from holding office, and requests a judgment that the 2006 amendment to the Pennsylvania election code, which waives the requirement for an oath of eligibility by candidates for president, is unconstitutional.HARRISBURG, PA. - April 6, 2012


In addition to the strong case presented in the action, the appeal also presents the campaign’s request for a finding that the Pennsylvania requirement that only party members may challenge a candidate’s nominating petition applies only to major parties, is unconstitutionally being applied to non-party candidates. Jim, having experienced an affront to him in 2010 by two different parties, claims that independent candidates, under Pennsylvania law, can be challenged by any party, so that they are, unfairly, three times as likely to be challenged, as compared to an equal-treatment format, where only citizens registered independent could challenge nomination papers of independent candidates. The Schneller campaign claims that independents should have the right to challenge nominations of either major party, if either major party may challenge independents.