Posted on 12/29/2008 8:34:26 PM PST by STARWISE
In what appears to be a strange twist, Phil Berg’s injunction, which asked the SCOTUS to stay the Electoral College Vote on December 15 or stay the counting of the votes on January 8, has been scheduled for a SCOTUS conference on Friday, January 16. This is in addition to the SCOTUS conference scheduled for January 9, which will take up Berg’s petition for certiorari.
It is difficult to determine what is going on in the minds of the Justices. Berg thinks that his certiorari petition may have been scheduled for conference after the Electoral College votes are actually counted because it is not until after the votes are counted that Obama is officially the President-Elect.
There are several theories flying around concerning the January 16 injunction conference. Jeff Berg at America ’s Right thinks that allowing a moot proceeding to be heard could be a tactic to prevent other such proceedings to come before the court.
On the other hand, Tom Waite, writing at Berg’s website, believes that the SCOTUS has very cleverly scheduled the petition for certiorari after the counting of the Electoral College votes because Berg will have standing at that point. Waite feels that the scheduling of the second conference on January 16 is a very clever way of boxing Obama in.
He likens it to a game of chess. If Obama does not produce the requested documentation on the 9th, then the SCOTUS can retroactively cancel the results of theElectoral College.
To add further intrigue to the situation, Obama is vacationing in Hawaii , where his friend and advisor, Valerie Jarrett, will be meeting with the governor.
And Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, is said to be vacationing in Africa with no word on where. Would it be a surprise to find him in Kenya , where Obama’s family has been silenced and where there very possibly is another birth certificate?
This is reading like a soap opera folks. Pass the popcorn, please.
http://www.americasright.com/
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
I have friends who live in HI and power outages are not uncommon. Don’t know exactly about due to lightning. A while ago there was an earthquake on the Big Island and Oahu elect. went out too, for at least 24 hours.
That’s what he claims.
Jeff Berg??
Not all the states reported their Electoral Votes:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-vote.html
December 15, 2008
Meetings of Electors and Transmission of Certificates of Vote to NARA
The electors meet in their State to select the President and Vice President of the United States. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. NARA's web site lists the States that have laws to bind electors to candidates. The electors record their votes on six "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment. The electors sign, seal and certify packages of electoral votes and immediately send one set of votes to the President of the Senate and two sets to the Archivist. The Federal Register preserves one archival set and holds the reserve set subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.
December 24, 2008
Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes at NARA
The President of the Senate and the Archivist should have the electoral votes in hand by December 24, 2008 (States face no legal penalty for failure to comply). If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.
What is the significance of this, if any? Does the comment on the blog have any validity, as far as asserting extraordinary circumstances?
Thanks for the reply, by the way.
I only have the paraphrase from the comment on the blog. But, the Legal Affairs and Policy Staff Office of the Federal Register did verify to us in on 12/24 that the information at NARA.gov is correct. Nothing on the site has changed since 12/24 (except a mis-scan of the Indiana Electoral Votes).
I’ve specifically been watching for California’s electoral votes. Alan Keyes’ team has been fighting those and they were never certified.
I’m hoping we won since we don’t see them.
I’m hoping Donofrio actually made an impact too. I still don’t see NJ’s Electoral Votes.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-vote.html
New Jersey isn’t there, either.
Oops, beat me to it. Connecticut is missing from the list, too.
I think all the states that had Roger on them are missing. But I can’t tell because he had stand ins on some of the ballots and I’m confused by what that meant.
Oh, to clarify, California didn’t have Roger on the ballot; but they did have an elector that died in 2001.
....who had an active voting status.
Such an amendment, even if Reid & Pelosi could marshal it through for 2/3 approval in both houses in a day or so, would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States, not 2/3. (Read Article V.)
That’s 38 States, and there is no way they will find 38 States that would approve it, especially in a day or so. State legislators in many States would be inundated with complaints and demonstrations by voters and other citizens.
I say: No way, Jose.
It’s early here, so I don’t recall which states actually allowed Calero on the ballot, but there weren’t that many. If they’re all missing, then it’s tempting to think that the suit(s) have had an impact.
Washington is on the list. I’d assume that the Washington SoS Reed would proceed as normal; to do otherwise could have an adverse effect for the State, as far as the lawsuit.
Heartily.
He wasn’t just on the ballot in some states though. He had stand ins for some states. Which is why I’m not sure if my theory is correct because I’ve never heard of a ballot stand in before and I have no idea how that works.
NJ was also not up to requirements with the HAVA Act and under federal order in 2006 not to have elections until the requirements were met. So NJ being absent from the Elector list may not have anything to do with the Donofrio case.
I just don’t know.
Allowing a stand in like that seems problematic to me, an invitation to a “straw man” President. But, it gets past the eligibility clause.
Ditto. Do you realize that after Jan 8, all of us will have standing and can individualy or collectively Challenge Obama's election and subsequent actions if elected, for which a number of statutes snd determinations
I have mentioned it in other threads that if the House approves the vote of the electoral college on Jan8, then the Writ of Certiori scheduled for Jan9 will be granted, paving the way for the injunction to be heard on Jan 16. SCOTUS will take the time to discuss the ramifications of the pending decision, and they will grant the injunction if the House does nothing to halt the electoral process.
Jan 16 is the key date for that will be the date SCOTUS will set aside the House's decision to validate the electoral votes and will demand that Obama prove his Constitutional eligibility before prior to the vote count.
And, it will be true that every US citizen, 18 or older, will now have standing to also challenge Obama's election. This will also be the reason why they will have no other choice but to act if Obamaclears the Congressional hurdles.
I fully expect to see motions made in the House to set aside the vote count until Obama produces the genuine proof of his eligibility -- beginning with the original BC and other documentation that BHO has kept secret.
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.