Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court filed,
Friday, June 7, 2012 (.pdf
A copy of the same can be
NOTE: The pages in the .pdf file have printed text boxes smaller than the letter-size pages. This is because the actual document submitted to the Court is a professionally bound booklet that is the same size as the text blocks, which is why you only see part of the pages being used for print. Court rules are strict, and require precise details be met with respect to the format and form of documents submitted to the Court by the litigants seeking to have their cases reviewed.
Opposition Brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by Mr. Wenninger's new attorney on June 26, 2012.
DISTRIBUTED FOR SEPT. 24 CONFERENCE - JULY 11, 2012
During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. The Justices hold a conference to vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. A small fraction of the petitions screened every week makes the "discuss list" compiled by the Chief Justice based upon his own review and suggestions from other Justices. The Chief Justice succinctly summarizes the case and announces his vote. The other Justices, proceeding in order of seniority, announce their votes without extended debate. The votes of four Justices at Conference will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. Five justices must agree to summarily reverse a decision without briefing and argument.
|Some answers to recent
Q: Why didn't you appeal the 12th District Appeals Court decision of October 29, 2008, to the Ohio Supreme Court?
A: I only had one right of appeal from the Common Pleas Court to the 12th District. Appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court would be a discretionary appeal that the Court could just deny hearing. I had not right of appeal to that Court. Furthermore, by the time an appeal of the mandamus decision by the 12th would make it to the Court for consideration, it would be well after the election results were certified on November 25, 2008, thereby making my appeal moot anyway. The only way after November 25th that I could challenge Mr. Wenninger's claim to the office would be through the quo warranto route.
Q: OPOTA said he was the sheriff of Brown County, so he must have been certified and valid?
A: The Ohio Police Officer Training Commission and Academy (OPOTC & OPOTA) are nothing more than a data entry/bookkeeping entities with no enforcement powers at all, one way or another. They just accept what is sent to them as being true and accurate information and record such in their record books. They do not check up to see if the information submitted to them is accurate, as they don't have the authority to do such. When Mr. Wenninger submitted his SF400adm to OPOTA, indicating he was the sheriff of Brown County, OPOTA accepted that as being valid without any questions asked. Their acceptance of information input to them has no bearing on its authenticity or accuracy.
Q: So, if Wenninger was not the sheriff during his first term, as you say Judge Ringland said in open court, how does that not make him a valid candidate in 2008, after they changed the law before the 2004 election?
A: Because Mr. Wenninger was not qualified to be a valid candidate in the 2000 election under the Ohio Revised Code provisions in 311.01(B), he could not be legally elected or appointed. And since he did not remove his disqualification prior to assuming the seat, he legally vacated it per prior Ohio Supreme Court decisions. Even though he was physically acting as sheriff and sent his SF400adm to OPOTA, he did not have a legally valid appointment. Under the Administrative Code provisions you start a break in service without a valid appointment. If you go one year without an appointment, your peace officer certificate becomes "invalid," to the point where you are no longer allowed to carry a gun or perform the duties of an Ohio peace officer until you take additional training to bring your certificate back into compliance. If you go over four years without an appointment, you lose your certificate completely and have to go back to the Academy to get a whole new peace officer certificate. So, Mr. Wenninger assumed office January 1, 2001. As early as January 1, 2002, his certificate became "invalid" which was enough to keep him from qualifying as a valid candidate for the 2004 election under 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b). On January 1, 2005, still during his first term in office, his certificate completely expired, by law, making him a civilian and no longer a peace officer on January 2, 2005. On January 3, 2005, he assumed a second-term seat as sheriff, as a civilian, carrying a gun, and arresting people, as an illegal usurper.
Mr. Wenninger's situation is exactly like President Obama's in that both have their records sealed; both have distinct eligibility deficiencies that disqualify each from ever being valid candidates for their respective office. Both have thus far successfully eluded legal scrutiny literally for years, holding office as usurpers that no court is willing to address in any legal proceeding. Felonies are being committed and have been given carte blanche by the courts to remain in office indefinitely.