Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
Wow, look at all those Bush supporters! /S
Heaven forbid he wear a T-shirt with Michelle’s picture on it, lol.
.
Michelle Gueverra?
No. However, it is important that a person who claims credentials in a certain field provide their name when making a judgement based on their expertise in which they are credentialed.
Actually, I agree with Sandra Ramsey Lines (who dares to use her name), however I disagree with your statement that she agrees with Polarik that the CoLB is a forgery. Here's what she says: "After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
She doesn't say its a forgery, she says an image published on the internet can't be verified one way or another.
She goes on to say; "Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it."
The images of the CoLB published on the factcheck.org site do have the certificate number.
how does that story from jesus go about the truth falling on stoney ground and Obama trolls swooping in?
Hmm - you misquote the Bible, adding your own little twist, and didn't capitalize the "J" in Jesus. Why should I take you seriously?
To raise an issue (or issues) is to question; nothing more, and nothing less. (is English your first language?)
I would do the same under the circumstances.
It was with the cases that involved Berg.
Thanks. The Bots are one dimensional. Unfortunately, we are in for four years of it.
You are in the right and the 0bama-apologists use only dirty tactics, and it is crystal clear that engaging with them is a pointless waste of time and an energy drain.
Please note keywrod trolling still in evidence.
You should not take me seriously. Nitpik all you care to, it only shows your agenda to obfuscate the actual issues at hand, Obamanoid. I have nothing but contempt for you folks. Twisting and deceiving is your stock and trade and you are taking over at FreeRepublic. Enjoy.
HIt the abuse button. More added now...Mods are able to tell who is adding these words.
Hey! I’ve got a good idea - let’s all post our real names, educational history, previous drug use, current and past addresses, the schools our children attend, work addresses and phone numbers, SS# and photos! Come one, milspec - you first! It’ll be fun!
No, its not like that at all.
***Your argument isn’t substantive at all, like most other CoLB trolls operating on these threads.
On that we agree, clearly there is a law that forbids housing soldiers in private homes. However, it does no follow that
***Actually, you make my point here. There really aren’t that many laws prohibiting it. There’s just the constitution. It’s the supreme law of the land. The same constitution says that an ineligible person can’t hold the office of president.
It is not the same kind of untested Constitutional area at all; one is a clear prohibition,
***So... saying the president must be at least 35 years old isn’t a clear prohibition against ineligibility? And that he must have lived in the US for 14 years isn’t clear? And that he must be natural born isn’t clear? Why, all of a sudden? Well, that’s freepin’ easy... because Obama is pushing hard on that one prohibition so the trolls must work overtime to say that one prohibition is clear while the other is not.
meaning NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to quarter soldiers in private homes.
***The same constitution says the president must be NBC. And the 20th amendment is clear that it’s the president elect who may fail to qualify, rather than the people who may fail to qualify the president elect.
Of course, if you really don't want people spreading "libel" regarding your Constitutional qualifications as a Presidential candidate in the first place, you release your long form Birth Certificate at the outset of your campaign.
Leo's case had a chance of working if one is to believe that a person must have two US citizens as parents
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.