No. 
In The 

Supreme Court of the United States 

Leo C. Donofrio, 

v. 

Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY 

Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se
PO Box 93
East Brunswick
New Jersey, 08816

November 3rd, 2008

AFFIRMATION

Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, respectfully submits to this most Honorable Court, 

having exhausted all available remedies below, that there are no other 

jurisdictions available to him for review.  Appellant further respectfully 

submits to this Honorable Court that this matter reflects a vitally important 

public interest, and that it also presents a unique Constitutional question of 

first impression as to the legal significance of the term "natural born citizen" 

as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States 

as an absolute qualifier for all who seek the office of President of the United States.  

LOWER COURT ORDERS

     Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, Has brought the emergency Application before 

this most Honorable Court directly from an order denying Appellant's Motion 

For Emergency Injunctive Relief from The Supreme Court of New Jersey, by the 

Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long, on Friday October 31, 2008 at approximately 

1:30 PM. Prior to making such Motion in The Supreme Court of New Jersey, 

Appellant sought emergency relief in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate 

Division, before the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino.  Appellant filed various papers 

in the Appellate Division, including a Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent 

Relief, and a letter supplement thereto, after which His Honorable Jack M. 

Sabatino granted full review of this matter.  Appellant then filed a Complaint 

In Lieu of Prerogative Writs, followed by a Motion For Summary Judgment.  

     Appellant's Application for Emergent relief, after having been granted 

full review by the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino and the Honorable Philip 

S. Carchman, Presiding Justice, Appellate Division, on October 27, was 

dismissed on October 30, 2008, by an order and five page decision by the 

Honorable Jack M. Sabatino at approximately 5:00 PM, October 30, 2008.

RELIEF REQUESTED

     Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey citizen who intends to vote in 

the pending general election of 2008, requests this most Honorable Court 

to issue an Emergency Stay prohibiting the use, in the State of New Jersey, 

of defective ballots containing at least three ineligible candidates for the 

office of President of the United States, and for such Honorable Court to 

order Defendant-Respondent, Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of 

the State of New Jersey, to remove from New Jersey ballots the names of 

Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama, 

and Socialist Worker's Party candidate Roger Calero, as Appellant 

respectfully submits they are not "natural born citizens" as enumerated 

in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.   

     And should this Honorable Court agree that the aforementioned 

candidates are not "natural born citizens" of the United States, Appellant 

respectfully submits, that while he did not request a Stay of the national 

election in the lower courts, such a Stay be ordered for good and proper 

cause.  In the alternative, while Appellant's original complaint requested 

an order staying the ballots until Respondent might complete a proper 

investigation as to the Presidential eligibility of the candidates, Appellant 

respectfully submits that the Constiutional issue now before the Court is 

of the utmost public importance and is also here now before this most 

Honorable Court as a matter of first impression. 

     Appellant respectfully submits that the only purpose for 

remanding the matter back to the Secretary of State would involve 

the issue of whether Democratic candidate Barack Obama be 

required to prove to Respondent that he was born in Hawaii.  

    Appellant, in both his original Complaint and Motion For 

Summary Judgment, contends that candidate Obama is not eligible 

to the Presidency as he would not be a "natural born citizen" of 

the United States even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii , since, 

as was argued in Appellant's original complaint brief, as well as 

Appellant's brief in support of Motion For Summary Judgment, 

Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having 

been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is 

not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 2, Section 1, 

of the United States Constitution.  

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

     In early October 2008, Appellant began to fear that controversys 

surrounding numerous law suits, filed against Presidential candidates 

Senator John McCain and Senator Barrack Obama, would threaten 

Appellant's fundamental voting right as well as his fundamental right 

to be governed by a President with a proper mandate under the 

Constituion.  

     On October 22nd, 2008, Apellant phoned the 

New Jersey Office of  Secretary of State, Elections Division, and 

spoke with Donna Barber, the Elections Manager for the State of 

New Jersey.  During that conversation, Appellant asked Ms. Barber 

what steps the Secretary had taken to determine whether any of 

the candidates listed on New Jersey ballots for the upcoming 

Presidential election were eligible for the office of President.  

     Donna Barber then informed Appellant that Respondent-Secretary 

of State took no steps to determine such eligibility but rather assumed 

the candidates were eligible based upon only the fact that they had 

been nominated.  Appellant then took a close look at the election statutes.

     N.J.S.A 19:13-22  requires Respondent to follow specifically 

prescribed steps in order to protect and secure New Jersey ballots

voters from the destruction of electoral integrity.  Specifically, 19:13-22 

requires Secretary Wells to make a "statement" wherein she certifies, 

under her hand and official seal of office, the names...

 "...of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election."   (Emphasis added.)

     The purpose of the statement is to instruct the clerks, and the board 

of elections, for each county, as to which candidates are "by law entitled" 

to have their names printed on the ballots for the upcoming election.    

The next day, October 23, 2008, Appellant spoke with Elections Manager, 

Donna Barber, and again was told that Respondent had no reason to 

object to the party nominations and that the statutory deadline for 

objection to such nominations had passed.  Ms. Barber specifically 

stated that her office, the Elections Division, would not change the 

ballots at such a late date. 

     Appellant considered various options, but ultimately came to 

the conclusion, after further review of the statutory code, that the only 

legal force available to him was an Action In Lieu of Prerogative 

Writs to compel Respondent's ministerial ballot policing duty.  

TIMELINESS OF ACTION IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

     Counsel below contended, and the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino, in his

decision, agreed, that Appellant brought his action too late.  Appellant 

rigorously contends that assertion to be false.  Feeling the weight of 

the impending election, Appellant wasted no time initiating litigation 

on October 27, 2008, only five days, including a full weekend, after 

he first learned of Respondent's misfeasance of office.  Counsel and 

his Honor have misinterpreted the statute they rely upon.

     Statutory objection deadlines listed in N.J.S.A. 19:13-10  apply, 

as to the Presidential race, only to certificates (major partys) and 

petitions (independant partys) of nomination for the electors of each 

party.  As long as such nominations follow statutory rules of 

construction, which Appellant stipulated below that they 

did, then such nominations were valid under the statute.    

     Furthermore, Appellant doesn't have the legal right to object to 

a political party's choice of candidate as such party is not a public 

official or agency, and has no Constitutional or statutory mandate.  

As private citizens they may, by law, nominate whoever they like.  

     New Jersey voters must rely upon the executive power of the 

Secretary of State to safeguard the integrity of our electoral process, 

especially during Presidential cycles when she must be most 

vigilant of her oath of office.  And if Respondent-Secretary doesn't 

protect the citizens of New Jersey, then it is up to the citizens of 

New Jersey to command  her to do so via the eloquent tradition 

of writ of mandamus which in New Jersey falls under the statute 

as an  action in lieu of prerogative writs. 

     Appellant's genuine cause of action accrued on September 22, 2008, 

when Respondent certified and delivered the 19:13-22 statement to the 

clerks of the several counties.  The "statement" was a final State agency 

decision which triggered Appellant's exclusive avenue of action under 

N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-(a)(2), a direct appeal, as of right, to the Appellate Division.  

Since the general limitation for commencing actions in lieu of prerogative 

writs is set at 45 days, according to N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-6, Appellant was well 

within such timeframe when he filed a Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative

Writs with the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino on October 28, 2008.  

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

POINT 1

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE HER STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF NEW JERSEY BALLOTS

     N.J.S.A. 19:13-22  requires the Secretary of State to submit a "statement", 

prepared by her hand and under her seal of office, to the clerks of the several 

counties of New Jersey, listing the names,

"...of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election".  (Emphasis added.)

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that the

 purpose of the statement is to instruct the clerks of the several counties 

of New Jersey as to which candidates are "by law entitled" to have 

their names printed on the ballots.  This was disputed by Respondent's 

counsel who argues that the statute's use of the term  "by law entitled", 

must refer to the actual voters who are eligible to vote, and not to the legal 

eligibility of the candidates.  Appellant gives this argument no quarter.  

     There are various statutes within the code, which govern the citizens as 

to voting, but this isn't one of them.  The statute isn't about suffrage. It  

commands the Secretary of State to protect  voters.  

N.J.S.A. 19:13-22:

The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.  This statement, in addition to the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, if any such have been included in any such certificate or petition filed with him, shall contain the names and residences of all other candidates, the offices for which  they are respectively nominated, and the names of the parties by which or the  political appellation under which they are respectively nominated. Candidates  nominated directly by petition, without distinctive political appellation,  shall be certified as independent candidates.  Similar statements shall be  made, certified and forwarded, when vacancies are filled subsequently, according to law. 

     As a result of Respondent's misfeasance, New Jersey ballots for the 

upcoming election contain the names of three Presidential candidates 

who are not, by law entitled, to hold the office of President of the United 

States, since they are not "natural born citizens" as is required by Article 

2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.  

    Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama.  Socialist 

Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua.  And 

the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been 

verified by Respondent.  

     The State of New Jersey is granted rights under Article 2, Section 1, 

of the United States Constitution regarding the issuing of ballots for 

New Jersey voters as well as the qualifying of candidates to appear on 

those ballots for the Presidential election.  The executive in charge of 

maintaining the integrity of New Jersey ballots is deemed to be the 

Secretary of State by Title 19 of the New Jersey Statute Annotated.

     N.J.S.A 19:13-22 provides no safe harbor to:

- candidates not entitled by law to appear on New Jersey ballots  
- candidates who might be entitled to appear on New Jersey ballots   
- candidates who probably are entitled to appear on New Jersey ballots

     The statute is very specific, the candidates must be by law entitled

to appear on the ballots.

     Respondent took an oath of office and swore to uphold, not just the 

Constitution of the State of New Jersey, but also the United States 

Constitution.  As the executive in New Jersey charged with securing 

ballots from fraud and deception, her prescribed duty is merged by legal 

fusion, in that the statutory term, "by law entitled", must  be subordinate 

to her Constitutional duty as the chief executive in charge of elections who 

protects the office of President from ineligible candidates.  This is because 

Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution sets forth the minimum 

requirements which make candidates, by law entitled, to be eligible to hold 

the office of President of the United States:

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 not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. 

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States 

Constitution, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

     Therefore, the requirements of N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 must be interpreted, 

in so far as the election for President of the United States is concerned, 

in light of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.  Therefore, the words 

"by law entitled" in the aforementioned statute must incorporate 

the requirements for the Presidency set forth in the United States 

Constitution.

     It is not disputed that Secretary Wells conducted no investigation to 

determine whether the major party candidates for President were 

constitutionally eligible for the office of President.  She accepted the 

certifications of nomination from both major parties under the assumption 

that the candidates were eligible, but she did nothing further to verifiy such 

eligibility. 

     Respondent's Counsel's brief in repsonse to Appellant's complaint does 

not dispute the facts.  Instead, Respondent's Counsel argues that the Secretary 

of State's role, as to elections in New Jersey, is only clerical:

"This matter rests upon Appellant's misreading of a statute.  By misreading a modifying phrase, he has taken what is the Secretary of  State's clerical function under N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to certify a list of names to county clerks, and manufactured a requirement to broadly investigate the lineage of candidates for the highest federal office."

     To that, Appellant argues, if not she, who then is responsible for protecting 

the integrity of New Jersey's electoral process?  Respondent is named specifically 

in N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.  The statement required therein is required to be made by 

her hand, under her seal of office.

"A State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies." Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, at 442. "It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral process is a legitimate and valid state goal." Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 761; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145  (1972).

   If the Secretary of State's role is clerical, than who is responsible for Roger 

Calero appearing on New Jersey ballots?  The official Presidential candidate 

for the Socialist Workers Party is Roger Calero.  Mr. Calero was born in 

Nicaragua.  The Socialist Workers Party has gained official access to 

ballots in ten States that Respondent is aware of.  And, despite the fact 

that the Socialist Workers Party has qualified to have their chosen candidate 

listed on those ballots, state election officials from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, 

Louisiana, and Washington have all, for good and legal cause, refused to 

list Mr. Calero on the ballots since, having been born in Nicaragua, he is 

not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 1, Section 2, of the 

United States Constitution.  In those states, a stand-in candidate, 

Mr. James Harris, has been listed in place of Mr. Calero.

     Furthermore, Respondent's counsel, in his reply brief, never discusses 

Respondent's Constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution, nor does 

the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino address the Secretary of State's 

oath of office meets Constitutional nexus in his decision.  

     With three ineligible Presidential candidates on their ballots, New Jersey 

voters will witness firsthand, the fraud their electoral process has become due 

to Respondent's misfeasance of office.  Appellant respectfully requests emergency 

relief be granted in order to restore integrity to New Jersey's electoral process.

COUNT 2

CANDIDATES OBAMA, MCCAIN, AND CALERO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T NATURAL BORN CITIZENS AS DEFINED BY ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

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; 

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE McCAIN

Petitioner begins this argument with a conclusion: had the US legislature 

intended to grant "natural born citizen" status to all who were born on US 

soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words "natural born 

citizen", but it doesn't. Republican candidate Senator John McCain was 

born in Panama.  Panama is not considered U.S. soil, nor has it ever been 

considered as such.  The Naturalization Act of 1790  was the only 

Congressional act which has ever attempted to confer "natural born 

citizen" status.  The relevant portion reads as follows:

"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits 
of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

     However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically repealed the act of 

1790 and replaced it with virtually the same clause as that of 1790, 

except the words "natural born" were deleted and have never been 

replaced by Congress.  The 1795 act reads as follows:

"the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United 
States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

    So Congress effectively kept the part of that clause which granted 

citizenship, but repealed the words "natural born" from that level of 

citizenship.  Congress never again attempted to legislate a definition 

of  "natural born citizen", and it's probably not even possible for them 

to do so without a Consitutional Amendment.  The United States 

Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) states: 

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." 

     Indeed, it is well established by precedent that children born 

abroad of United States citizens are not granted citizenship by 

the Constitution, but rather by statute.  The 14th Amendment 

states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized.  

He is a citizen at birth by statute.  This is discussed in the Foreign Affairs Manual:

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth." Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act. (Emphasis added.)

The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:

- "natural born citizen", but only with regard to eligibility 
to hold the office of President

- "citizen" to those born in the United States via the 14th 
Amendment

- "citizen" to those naturalized in the United States via 
the 14th amendment  

McCain is none of the above.  He wasn't born on United States 
soil and he wasn't naturalized in the United States.  Instead, 
McCain may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a): 

“Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

     McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, 

but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute.  

In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971). The Supreme Court stated: 

...[C]children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.”… “To this day, the Constitution makes no provision for jus sanguinis, or citizenship by descent... “Our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Id. at 828. 

So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born citizen".  

The Foreign Affairs Manual weighs in on the issue as follows:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President,"

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". 

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.  (Emphasis added.)

     Appellant would point out that the manual fails to mention that 

Congress specifically repealed the "natural born" part of the 1790 act.  

Recently, the US Senate has issued a resolution stating that McCain 

is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President, but the resolution 

has absolutely no legal effect.  It is simply an opinion and as such 

it holds no authority whatsoever.  

     Furthermore, while Congress could have at least attempted 

to pass legislation granting "natural born citizen" status to 

children of US citizens born broad such as Senator McCain, Congress 

has not done so. The 14th Amendment also requires that, in 

order for citizenship to be conferred thereby, whether born on 

US soil, or naturalized in the US, the person also be subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States.  And because of this caveat, 

"natural born citizen" status is proved to be a very special 

requirement specifically necessary for those who would be 

eligible to the office of President of the United States.  A natural 

born citizen has no encumbrances or conditions whatsoever 

upon his citizenship.  

    Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly 

suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.  He has 

shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, 

and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request 

that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States

to remove John McCains name from the ballots. 

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

    First, I must address, out of respect for Senator Obama, that 

Judge Sabatino's lower court decision makes an egregious error 

wherein it states that Appellant suggested Senator Obama's 

father might have been born in Indonesia.  Appellant never made 

any such allegation in any of Appellant's papers.  I have been 

assured by his Honor's clerk that the error will be corrected.

     As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth 

certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point 

out that Senator Obama has not  been presented with a genuine 

legal request from a party with proper standing to command 

him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility 

to submit or to bend his integrity.  And for that, he certainly 

deserves respect. 

     Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal 

request from a government authority sanctioned to make such 

request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put 

this issue behind him forever.  

     That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate 

Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office 

of President since is not a "natural born citizen" by the Constitution.

Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order the 

Secretaries of the several States to remove Barack Obama's name from 

the ballots. 

CONCLUSION

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court, once again, 

that had the legislature intended to grant "natural born citizen" 

status to all who were born on US soil, then the 14th Amendment 

would contain the words "natural born citizen", but it doesn't.  

     And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that 

a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, 

neither of which is an alien.  Having an alien parent would tie such 

person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws.  And such 

a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators 

Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the 

office of President of the United States.  

STANDING

     Appellant's standing was not challenged in Respondent's reply

brief, nor was it challenged in his Honorable Sabatino's order and decision.  

However, Appellant discusses the issue below in respect to this most Honorable 

Court's superior jurisdiction.  In Ridgewood Education Association  v Ridgewood 

Board Of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. (1995)), the Court stated, 

"We see no reason why this State's historic liberal approaches to the issue 

of standing in general....should not apply to taxpayer suits challenging the 

quasi-legislative actions of local boards of education." Silverman v. Board of Ed., 

Tp. of Millburn, 134 N.J. Super. 253, 257-58 (Law Div.), aff'd o.b. 131 N.J. Super. 

435 (App. Div. 1975). 

     The policies of justice regarding the sanctity of voting rights were also 

stated in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178, 

814 A.2d 1028 (October 2, 2002).  Although the petitioner bringing 

suit in that case was a political party, the voting rights discussed 

and protected were those of individuals.  Therefore, the reasoning 

of that case should apply when the petitioner is an individual voter.  

     Appellant's fundamental right to vote for a candidtae who will not be 

disqualified after the election is now threatened by the inclusion on 

New Jersey ballots of three ineligible candidates.

"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." Bush v. Gore,  531 U.S 5, 6 (2000) 

     And finally, Appellant's fundamental right to live in the United States 

governed by a President and Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally 

eligible to the office of President is also threatened.  Since this action is so very 

grounded in the interests of justice, and supported by all of the above, 

Appellant respectfully requests that this court recognize his standing.

FINAL CONCLUSION

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that while the 

limitations of our Constitution may at times appear unfair, it is important

to remember that it is the restrictions which hold us to the Document, as much 

as it is the freedoms that bind us together as a nation. 

"I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware 
that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I 
am subject to punishment."  

___________________________________, November 3rd, 2008
Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se