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 ...
As far as “any other federal job”, no one else (except Biden) is hired by 67 million citizens.
***Then the requirement is 67 million times more severe.
Wow, you mean business. As I wrote earlier, I haven’t read through this thread to see what all was discussed.
As a woman I am not familiar with all the guns, etc, but they are going to have to use some force or just give up.
If they start killing the whole world will start clamoring, but maybe they should take a hint from Israel....
I can show up at any blood bank and state I'm eligible to donate.
I am required to first read a book of literature stating guidelines and restrictions on who can donate blood.
I then must sit down with a nurse/phlebotomist who will check my temperature, pulse, blood pressure, and hematocrit, or blood iron content (which must be at least 12.5).
I then must privately answer a series of questions determining my health and eligibility.
I then must sign a form stating that I am eligible to donate and that my blood is safe for others to use.
I then go through the donation process: they stick a needle in my arm and withdraw a pint of blood.
When the process is finished, they give me a slip of paper with callback instructions and a number to call if I decide my blood isn't safe to give after all (if I suddenly come down with a virus that I'd been incubating or if I suffer a pang of conscience that I wasn't completely honest on the health questionnaire).
Of course I also consent to have the blood sample tested anyway.
After all of that, my blood is tested and labeled before being given to those who need it.
Only cytomegalovirus-negative people ("CMV negative") donors may have their blood used for infant transfusions.
All CMV-negative eligible donors are donors, but not all eligible donors are CMV-negative.
Yes, I read that very few water landings are successful. That pilot was a hero in more ways than one.
Glad you are back, frozen though you are....Lol
.
Gonzo - left Sunny Florida?
Welcome to The Great White North!
-
Yeah - The pilot is an former jet fighter pilot and an expert in emergencies and Rush said he also has his own company
-
Hawaiian law distinguishes between the two of them, as cited, and states that the short form is simply a “verification in lieu of the a birth certificate”, NOT A CERTIFICATE.
No. It is legal, prima facie proof of the facts on it. It does carry full legal weight. From the front of the certificate, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
Prima facie evidence is not enough to settle a constitutional dispute when the source document exists and would be required. I can only hope that this gets adjudicated and Obama refuses a court order on that basis when it clearly does not carry the same weight.
Already discussed and debunked. The "status" in question isn't identity or being born in Hawaiian. It is having a certain degree of native Hawaiian blood. It's not that won't take the birth certificate, it's that proof of ancestry is ALSO required FOR THIS PROGRAM. It is not a comment on the legal validity of birth certificates.
There is nothing to debunk. The example I used showed where the short form does not carry the same legal weight as the actual birth certificate, for those purposes.
But this isn't one of those forms.
Again, this is an example where the SHORT FORM DOES NOT CARRY THE SAME LEGAL WEIGHT.
Also previously discussed by others. If true, and if it applied to Obama's circumstances, things that aren't given, who says it is going to lie?
Huh? That made no sense. The US Passport office acknowledges that passport fraud occurs by forging birth certificates, therefore we know that it does happen and explains how Obama could have gotten a passport in spite of a suspect birth certificate (this is a typical defense by Bots). If it was possible for out of state births to be registered in Hawaii and his sister was registered that way, it possible it happened in Obama’s case, given the circumstances. No one in the state records office needs to lie, they only commented that a birth record exists and did not elaborate on the detailed information, whether it has ever been cross checked with the hospital and the delivering doctor, how it was filed and by whom, and any AMENDMENTS that have been made.
By law, Obama has a right to request a certified copy of his original long form birth certificate for $10, as opposed to $5 for a verification IN LIEU OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE (COLB). There are basic questions about where he was born, who delivered him, what his name was at that time, how the birth record was filed, whether he is a natural born citizen and qualified o be President. TEN DOLLARS WOULD CLEAR UP THE MATTER. Instead Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars by some estimates to prevent it from being released and the only defense from his Bots is a weak argument that a short form abstract is sufficient instead of the ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENT. The short form does not carry the same legal weight and lacks the detailed information necessary to allow for corroboration of the facts in dispute.
Hoosergramps Fan Club - what's my member number?
All this is making for some interesting blog post pinball....
The goal is to win at the ballot box and not take it to court where you cannot win.
That is pure fantasy.
After noon on Tuesday, the only way to remove Obama is through impeachment.
And the GOP will not control the U.S. Senate until sometime after 2013.
Bingo!!!
Hit the nail on the head there...
“Too bad our population has grown fat and reliant on the government and is too apathetic to take action. And the clowns who are in control know it.”
I would add to that, that our population has grown so “intellectually lazy” that anything that can distract from reality like American Idol, Survivor (pick yer season) and Oprah...That it really doesn’t matter what our “checks and balances” in the government do (or not do in this case) anymore ...
I would love to see him prepared to give the oath of office but with the caveat of “you better bring a certified birth certificate to the podium so I can look at it before I have you repeat after me”...
That would be such a fun thing to watch, and a lesson to the idjits freezing thier assets off out there in the crowd...
You were saying — “That is pure fantasy. After noon on Tuesday, the only way to remove Obama is through impeachment.”
Well, I would have thought the very same thing, that having a Marshal walk in and escort Obama out of the White House was fantasy (and perhaps even a joke). BUT, it would appears that several esteemed FReepers actually believe *this* is a method that will work. And they are urging the courts to do this.
If this is “pure fantasy” — then the next question I would have is “what’s happening to the thinking of some Freepers on this board?”
I mean, is their *absolute desire* so intense to get Obama out by any means — that they’ve completely abandoned reality?? That could be a real serious problem for some FReepers, because that’s sort of a debilitating disease of sorts, because it “sidelines” you into a fantasy world, and you don’t interact with “real situations” that would work with Obama...
The poster is making—without stating it openly, —the specious argument that it doesn’t matter if 67 million people were scammed into voting for an ineligible candidate, by getting so many to vote for him the law should be set aside in favor of his illicit acts being deemed licit by mob rule. It is a sycophant’s favorite argument to shut down discussion and is never openly stated. Such posters have no credibility beyond casual observation since they are advocating government by mob rule, kind of like lions discussing with the lamb what will be for dinner.
The situation you describe is not a requirement, it is a prohibition; in other words, no action may be taken to quarter soldiers in private homes. There is no need for the general to prove who he is because the action, not rank or identity is the issue.
For him to say, “well, where’s the written law that prevents me from doing this” is disingenuous.
On that we agree, clearly there is a law that forbids housing soldiers in private homes. However, it does no follow that
And it is just as disingenuous for CoLB trolls to demand that such a law be present for the same kind of untested constitutional area.
It is not the same kind of untested Constitutional area at all; one is a clear prohibition, meaning NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to quarter soldiers in private homes.
The written law is the very first set of laws: the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Your requirement that there be some kind of procedure or statute in place is a way of putting such procedures in priority over the constitution and it is a logical fallacy.
We agree that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and then we part company. The Constitution sets forth the requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen, but doesn't define, in detail, what that means nor a process or form of proof for assuring compliance. Without that, compliance could mean taking the word of the politician that he meets the requirement. To define and spell out in law what compliance means does not put "procedures in priority over the constitution", it merely sets forth how the Constitutional requirement must be met.
Obama did release his CoLB that states he was born in Hawaii. You claim that's not good enough to prove Constitutional compliance to your satisfaction. The logical fallacy is yours.
No, its not like that at all.
Ah, so a forged document is fake but accurate enough for you. ... Next
An allegation of fakeness from some guy on the internet is not good enough. Where are your standards?
“It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don’t know why they were fired into Kuwait.” - Baghdad Bob
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.