Posted on 03/10/2009 10:16:05 AM PDT by Free America52
. . . . t any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
You said — “Natural death (or incapacitation), grand jury conviction (ie for murder as another capital offense), and assassination?”
LOL..., I like it.... funny...
Why would I discuss with a proven liar like you? Get your smattering of credibility soem other place, deceiver.
So, because we interred the Japanese Americans during WWII the government has Historical Precedence for imprisoning its own citizenry for no actual crime, no?
{I agree with you on the importance of the ‘if’ statement. Here’s a question for you: how do we prove it?}
Well, you DID notice that he didn’t say LEGAL means of removing him from office, right?
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SJ0001.htm
We're a little behind the times, maybe?
We are in such a scenario, the only reason the media is not pushing this to the hilt is that they have built up the boy wonder to the point where he believes every thing they write about him and is naive enough to believe that he has them under his control.
We are already seeing cracks appearing in the media shield around Obama.
"Chief Justice John Roberts will be in Idaho!
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts is familiar with that conference? Can anyone in Idaho show up to the University of Idaho and ask why the case wasn't heard?
I need to know when and where Supreme Court Justices give lectures
Help me reach Supreme Court Justices After the meeting with Justice Scalia, I realized that he never heard about my case Lghtfoot v Bowen or any other cases brought to the Supreme Court about Obama's lack of eligibility for presidency. Supreme Court gets some 80,000 cases and hears only about 80. So, they hear only about 0.1% of the cases brought to them. I believe the nefarious clerks that are actually running the show, are advising them about the importance and the strength of the cases, summarize the cases for them. I need to know if the other Justices have a clue about the cases. At the meeting Scalia told that they pick the cases based on importance. At the time they had a conference on my case Lightfoot v Bowen and didn't find eligibility of president to be important, they found litigation on light cigaretes to be important. Either this is a complete insanity, or the clerks have never shown the case to them. The Justices of the Supreme Court travel around the Country all the time and give lectures and sell their books. Please, let me know, when those justices come to your area. Either I will come or you have to demand answers from them: Why didn't they forward from the conference to the open court argument my case Lightfoot v Bowen? or any other cases on this issue? Don 't they think legitimacy of president is as important as litigation on light cigarettes. American citizens deserve a clear answer from them, why didn't they hear the case and what will it take for them to hear the case in open court and subpoena Obama's records. If you have a date and time, call me" [see her site for #]
You were asking — “So, because we interred the Japanese Americans during WWII the government has Historical Precedence for imprisoning its own citizenry for no actual crime, no?”
You’re saying that as a comparison with Chester Arthur (of course...). Well, the fact that he was illegally President — does *not* provide the precedent for someone else to become President “illegally” — because “it was done before” that way.
Another way to say it would be to say that if several people get away with murder (even when they go to court and they are not convicted, but pronounced “not guilty”) — murder is still a crime and the law is not changed. And you can convict others for this crime of murder, even if many have “gotten away with it”. The law does not change because of that “precedent” of “getting away with it”.
That is how the “precedent” is not created for this to be “legal” now.
But, I was not talking about making it legal to be President even when one is not qualified under the Constitution. No, I still say that is the law and that is the requirement. Nothing changes there.
What I said, was that the acts and the laws signed and the things that the President did — did not become “undone” because of him being an “illegal President.” Nothing changed in that regard (not in terms of the “illegality” of his taking the office).
So, that was the comparison (for me, with Chester Arthur), in that all laws and legislation and normal stuff that the President does (i.e., signs and enacts) will still remain intact. And furthermore, Obama will still be considered to have been President for the time he is in office, just like Chester Arthur is considered to be President for his time in office, even though it is well-recognized that he was not qualified under the Constitution.
—
And lastly you said — “{I agree with you on the importance of the ‘if’ statement. Here’s a question for you: how do we prove it?}”
I do have an answer to that — as to how we prove it. I’ve been hammering on this solution for “proving it” — as the *only thing* that will work!
I’ve been saying for months that we need to enact state laws which demand the specific documentation that we need, in order to place a candidate on that state’s ballot. If they don’t provide the documentation, then they can’t be on the ballot. Get enough states to do that and you’ve got an effective hammer to produce the documentation — or else, force the candidate to resign...
That is currently being done in Oklahoma and Arizona right now. I’ve been working with my state legislature in Oklahoma on the issue since it went into session this year. I’m only a citizen and have no special connection with anyone — but that’s enough, as a normal citizen. The legislator that put it through is from Broken Arrow, a suburb and adjacent to Tulsa, OK. I’m in Tulsa so he’s close... :-)
I’m hoping it sails through, and it’s “moving” now, having gone out of committee now...
That’s the answer as to how one can get the proof. I see no other way that will work.
One more forced removal.
And another resignation.
You said — “Why would I discuss with a proven liar like you? Get your smattering of credibility soem other place, deceiver.”
Great argument you have there. Now, I know why people are getting nowhere on this issue... :-)
I figured you must be bored and decided to entertain yourself a bit with a couple of rounds with S.T.
Ooops almost forgot the LOL :)
You know, don't you, that by the time the 17th was passed, 29 states had already gone to a popular election system for choosing their senators? There were good reasons for going to a popular vote at the time, including a string of scandals in which it was revealed that men had bribed a few key votes in their state houses to win their senate seats--or more correctly, that their wealthy business interest backers had bribed them-- as well as strings of partisan deadlocks that left states without any representation in the senate for years on end.
Maybe it would be better to repeal the 17th, but don't pretend that there weren't genuine problems under that way of doing things.
The cosmic fairy is only here to keep the thread off topic. Instead of clapping your hands, you need to set on them when the fairy shows up...soon the little fairy will fade away.
If there was a problem, it would be with Justice Scalia, not Dr. Taitz. But Scalia didn't really discuss the details of the case with her, just procedural matters, it would seem.
On the other hand, Dr. Taitz' adversary in the case, Obama, has socialized with almost all the SCOTUS justices on at least two occasions. Is that not just as much, or even more, of a "problem"? No one knows what was discussed between Obama and his staff, on the one hand, and the justices on those occasions.
Ping!!!
Please see my post # 95.
You said — “If there was a problem, it would be with Justice Scalia, not Dr. Taitz. But Scalia didn’t really discuss the details of the case with her, just procedural matters, it would seem.”
Well, I would expect Scalia to do no more than that. I would certainly hope so... :-) It was the lawyer that I saw as the problem...
—
And then you said — “On the other hand, Dr. Taitz’ adversary in the case, Obama, has socialized with almost all the SCOTUS justices on at least two occasions. Is that not just as much, or even more, of a “problem”? No one knows what was discussed between Obama and his staff, on the one hand, and the justices on those occasions.”
Hey, I think that Orly could have asked Scalia out for drinks and they could both “shoot the breeze” with a group of people. No problem there...
The problem I see is asking questions about the very case you personally have (as a lawyer) to the *very judge* who is going to hear your case... LOL...
And, as far as Obama socializing, as I said, that’s fine. Orly could socialize too, but *definitely not( discuss the case which is going before the judge...
All that hard work ended up in the waste-paper basket by the sound of it.
One would have to discuss matters of the case to be in violation of the Ex Parte rule. There is no Obama NBC case in front of SCOTUS when Orly spoke with Scalia. However, when Obama visited the Supreme Court in the middle of January, cases where on the docket about Obama's Natural Born Citizenship issue, Ex Parte was more in question.
Orly: " I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."
Taitz's question was more of a hypothetical question and received a hypothetical answer from Scalia.
And LoL!
Okay, I get it... as long as you ask the judge how he’s going to decide your case *before* you present it to him — that’s okay... [and here it is...} LOL...
[ ... Lawyer: “ Ummm..., judge, I’m bringing this case before you and I was wondering if you could tell me how you’re going to decide this case, so I know before I present it in court. You wouldn’t mind, would you?”
Judge: “No problem..., we should be able to figure this case out before you get here and have all the problem solved. It should take no time at all to get this case done in court, and then we can go out for beer later...” ]
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.