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 ...
It is forged if you take the word of a self-described, unnamed expert. With years of experience working with scanned images, I don't.
I do find it interesting that you are willing to buy into the claims that the CoLB is a forgery without being able to check the background and credentials of the "expert". That tells me that it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.
Have you been following the Minnesota Senate election?
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this on both counts. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't make it untrue. It is a birth certificate and it is legal proof.
"Prima facie evidence is not enough to settle a constitutional dispute when the source document exists and would be required."
Who says that? You're just pulling that out of thin air. Prima facie evidence is enough to settle the matter unless someone can prove otherwise.
"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."
No, that's not what it show at all. You need to read and understand the cites, not just use them as ammunition. What I'm telling you is what that web page says itself.
They will accept a birth certificate, but it's not enough to qualify for the program. You also have to prove ancestry. They need *additional* data. It's not that there's something wrong with a birth certificate.
"Huh? That made no sense."
You're right, I could have phrased it better.
What I was saying is, you haven't shown that any of these out of state birth certificates apply to Obama, in either time frame or circumstances. But even if they did apply, you are just assuming that the certificate would lie.
"Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any longer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catching them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target." - Bahgdad Bob
And the closeness of the MN Senate race is simply proof that Coleman is a RINO and that conservatives stayed home.
But at least Coleman has a case, the 11/4 Truthers have no case.
Is this the Alan Keyes case?
You make an ass of yourself by assuming I am not familiar with P\’Polarik’. But then Nobama needs useful agitprops to ridicule and lie and play word games like a platoon of agitprops are doing currently on Freerepublic.com. I suppose you would take the word of a fool who keeps posting quotes from Baghdad Bob and denying the plain language of the testimony filed in Califronai court reagrding a government document expert who has agreed with Polarik’s finding re the forged CoLB. Figures ... how does that story from jesus go about the truth falling on stoney ground and Obama trolls swooping in?
The poster lies in bold fashion, Best to just refer the scum to other threads at FR or elsewhere on the Net which expose the liar rather than give the scum a forum on which to continue lying. It is now SOP for the Obama fops to stated that soemone offering the truth is ‘just wrong’. And Jim nor the moderators care to clean up any of the messes on the various aisle being worked by the obamanoid trolls. Your points, BTW, were well presented and readers can discern the truth regardless of the continuous spittle from obamanoids.
You are lying.
[[ 2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. 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. ]]
.
"the COLB presented on the internet...cannot be relied upon as genuine."
Why not? What is the reason she gives? Is it forgery?
No. The reason is that it is not the original peice of paper. Something a document examiner always requires.
"Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm."
Yes. Which ones? She does explain you know. Stop trying to mislead people by leaving the detail out.
The ones she can affirm are the ones having to do with not being able to authenticate a scanned image, and with having the certificate number blacked out. Again, neither of which has to do with forgery.
There's a simple way to prove me wrong. Post an exact quote from her document that specifically endorses any allegation of forgery. Easy right? It would be if you were telling the truth. But you aren't, you are lying.
If he is not willing to risk his life, he must not be all that concerned about the future of our country.
Attacking the character of other freepers seems to be popular with obamanoids (obama annoyance droids).
Antonyms of adj genuine; genuine (vs. counterfeit)
forg·ery : invention; something forged; an act of forging ; especially, the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document
Excuse me? Do you read your own posts?
Nowhere does she say the document is not in fact genuine, or that any part of it is forged. She says it can't be used to prove anything.
If you took an absolute bona-fide with a doubt genuine birth certificate, blacked out the certificate number, scanned it, and posted it on the internet, her comments would equally apply to that.
I am not all that sure that questioning a person who advocates a BC Conspiracy Theory is an attack. But if you see it that way, please accept my apologies.
And if anyone has solid proof that the COLB is a forgery, they need to get that information to Chief Justice Roberts before noon on Tuesday.
After that moment, the only way to remove would be to impeach and to do that you will need large GOP majorities in the House and Senate.
You are here it seems 24 hours a day patrolling these threads and asking the same questions over and over again. You are not engaging in debate as much as trying to disrupt diacussion. You cherry pick statements from a post and twist them in order to defend Obama. You do not include any portions of a post that you cannot refute.
I have never defended Obama.
But yes, if I see false statements that are listed as fact, I will refute them.
And no, if I were here 24 hours a day, I would not have time for sleep, work or for my family.
Now, if you have some actual fact regarding the natural born citizen question, please list them.
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.