Contact us to host a fundraiser!


Candidate for Governor (D) 2018

Paid for and authorized by Citizens for Lee Whitnum.


Whitnum blames missing Writ of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court as Politically motivated


Lee Whitnum candidate for Governor (CT-D) in the State of Connecticut is demanding the U.S. Supreme Court do a full investigation of her missing Writ of Certiorari which has vanished from the US Supreme Court. The Writ is an appeal of the Whitnum v. Town of Greenwich Establishment Clause case.  Whitnum suggests the disappearance is the work of a renegade politically motivated employee at the US Supreme Court.

“I doubt the saboteur will be punished,” said Whitnum. “You'd think that after what I’ve been through in the unlawful Connecticut Court System that nothing would surprise me,” said Whitnum.  “I’m shocked.  Get the hell out of my Court System, including the U.S. Supreme Court, if you can’t check your politics at the door, then you shouldn’t have a job. The person responsible needs to be fired.”

Whitnum was alerted yesterday of the disappearance of the Writ by the defense attorney for the Town of Greenwich.  Andrew McPherson of Goldstein and Peck PC in Bridgeport, sent Whitnum an email that although he received his copy of the Writ of Certiorari, he called down to the U.S. Supreme Court and they have no record of receipt.  Whitnum, alarmed, tracked her mailing receipt with the United States Postal Service. The website sent a confirmation which stated: “Signature Confirmation™ item number 9510800009447028000131. The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on February 1, 2017 at 10:59 am in WASHINGTON, DC 20543 to W LEE.”

”So where is it," asks Whitnum, who then called the clerk who confirmed that there is no record of the Writ being logged in at the U.S. Supreme Court. “Ok, we know it arrived and it has vanished on their turf.”

“More of the same unlawfulness,” said Whitnum who claims Israel-firsters in Connecticut have subjected her to all manner of judicial bias and trickery - even repeated false arrest -  all in violation of the Connecticut Practice Book.  Whitnum claims her speaking out publically against the U.S. funding of Israel as a candidate in 2008, incited them. “There is no free speech regarding anything Israel related.”

“This problem runs the gamut from abusing the Court system to browbeat a small individual like me into quietude - contrasted all the way up to the handful of Neocons (Israel-firsters) at the Pentagon submitting phony slides to a president to take down a country – for another county. Their motivation is the same, loyalty elsewhere. It seems there is no one safeguarding the institutions and values of the United States. Our power, our brand, the perception of the United States world-wide is diminished and we are drawn deeper and deeper into the goals of another country.  World-wide disappointment, and hatred, is the result of the deterioration of what we promised and what we have become.

"Can I have my country back?” Asks Whitnum who must now work to recreate the Writ and re-submit it to the US Supreme court. “What a hassle.”   

HISTORY:

In the Whitnum v. Town of Greenwich federal case, the Town of Greenwich allowed, in Town Hall, 2 events: a Bar Mitzvah and an over-the-top celebration of Israel’s 68-year birthday – the birth of the political movement of Zionism.  “I believe we should not, as a town or a nation, be celebrating Zionism, in Israel there are 3.5 million people who are not citizens of the country where they were born because they were not born Jewish, that is contrary to our values,” said Whitnum. “But my beliefs aside, the media has misreported the gravamen of the case. It was not so much about the flag-raising as the access allowed for the party in the late morning and a religious service – a separate event in the afternoon. Even the Torah was brought in!”  

Whitnum claims the Town of Greenwich allowed access to the Jewish Community that far exceeded that allowed to any other ethnic group and that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause and Article 7 of the Connecticut Constitution.  In the months after the Bar Mitzvah, Whitnum was precluded, twice, from holding Christian Confirmation at the same venue.

Some took umbrage at her wording of the Complaint in the case calling Whitnum an anti-Semite.  “Much of the wording for the case was taken from an old ACLU case. No one complained when similar wording was used against the Christian Cross at the Cos Cob Firehouse in 1984 – a Landmark Establishment Clause case.”

 After going through the Federal and Appellate Court level, Whitnum appealed to the US Supreme Court but now that Writ of Certiorari has disappeared. 

   ###