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.


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.)

The Clerk was not appointed by a sitting President, nor was the Clerk confirmed by the Senate. So why is he making a substantive determination of law supported by a one paragraph opinion, signed into law by his hand? How is that legal?

But since I do now have a substantive decision on official Supreme Court letterhead – in an original jurisdiction action – the only court that has appellate jurisdiction over this decision is the United States Supreme Court. So, while my core filing is under original jurisdiction, my appeal of the Clerk’s usurpation of judicial power is under the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. And taking the form of an Emergency Stay, it is properly addressed to Justice Alito.


Think about that question. Share it on social media and in commentary. Call the Supreme Court. Ask them how a low clerk can both, overrule Supreme Court precedent by not allowing my case to be docketed, and forbid a Justice of the Court from reviewing the Clerk’s unauthorized issuance of judicial decree. This cowardly behavior by the Court is eroding whatever is left of its dwindling credibility.

My filing was proper according to Supreme Court Rule 17.4, and it should have been docketed. There is no statute, precedent, or Court Rule prohibiting it.

Do I believe that the Clerk failed to show the papers to at least one of the Justices? No, I do not. How could the Justices not be aware of my case? Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich cited to my case in his Motion to the Supreme Court in the Texas case. So, of course the Justices know about my case.

And it must scare the hell out of them, because they have used the low Clerk as an obstacle placed in the way of them “officially” having to deal with the case. You see, if the Clerk never dockets the case, then the Justices can attempt to avoid responsibility by claiming they never had it before them. That’s a game they have played with me before, and it’s a game they famously lost. (More on that soon.)

The Clerk is certainly taking orders. The Court does not want to go anywhere near my case, because they have already decided in Foster v. Love – in a 9-0 decision – that federal elections must be “consummated” on Election Day. The 2020 Presidential Election was not decided on Election Day. That means 3 U.S.C § 1 was violated. When that happens, 3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks in, sending the decision back to the Legislatures. It’s pretty simple actually. Unfortunately, most of these cases have taken forever and failed to cite the most appropriate law and precedent.

Did I bring this case because I believed the Supreme Court would decide it in my favor? No. I brought the case just to get it docketed. Once docketed, President Trump, the State of Texas, or any other State, or the Legislature of any other State, could have intervened in this case.

The Supreme Court made sure that didn’t happen…and they took their sweet time too. My case was filed four days before Texas filed. That case was handled in a fury by the Court, ultimately decided on December 11th, while no action on my case was communicated to me until two weeks after Texas struck out. How cute. SCOTUS ran out the clock, America. Then they dodged.

And that is why Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris will not obey Rule 17.4 and docket the case. Did he make this draconian illegal move on his own? Or was he forced to do it? We all know the truth. I have sent the Emergency Application to Chief Justice Roberts’ legal Counsel as well.

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

2 Responses to “NEW ELECTION EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE ALITO: Can A Clerk Overrule The Supreme Court?”

  1. […] Leo Donofrio, naturalborncitizen, […] Brittany, please update your page for this with the SCRIBD link to the new SCOTUS filing:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: