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 ...
Pretty simple logic.
***I thought so.
I'm looking forward to catching the archive!
Also, this Arlen Williams guy from Investigating Obama is on Mark's program tonight at 7pm CT.
Please call in and bail him out: (347) 237-4870
You said — “Scotus only read their mail. They do not accept emails and faxes.”
You’re right as I read about that *specifically* in a couple of news articles. If I remember right, they simply *trash* the rest.
Can you imagine how many thousand upon thousand of faxes and e-mails have simply been trashed so far — because people “thought” they were getting their opinions through to the Supreme Court. And to find out (later) that it was all trashed...
I bet the larger majority of those people will go on with the mistaken idea that their opinions were actually read and considered...
It does “pay” to get to know what the proper protocol is to use for someone (if you want them to read what you’re writing...).
—
My own guess — is — that even with the “mailed” letters — that very few of them ever get to the Justices, themselves. I can imagine they have a staff that *may* just put a “tally” down — if even doing that. I would suppose they’ll screen all of them, and trash the ones they’ve been told that the Justices don’t want to hear about...
You said — “I’ve been looking for that... Do you know when and where he actually did he say that? In the LOC papers?”
Go to Leo Donofrio’s site; he’s written a few articles on Arthur definitely not being qualified to be President... He may have what you want.
—
Talking about Donofrio, I sometimes wonder if Donofrio’s case had been acted upon and both McCain and Obama were eliminated before the election or “afterwards” too — what kind of an election would we have?
You said — “If you cannot actually qualify, then you are prohibited holding the office. Pretty simple logic.”
That statement is *theoretical* and it depends on the “facts on the ground” to be able to carry it through like you want and thus become the “real”.
Three examples:
Chester A. Arthur (21st President) - He was not qualified to serve, so by the definition given he’s “prohibited holding the office”. The only problem? He did hold the office. What happened? The “facts on the ground” did not make it clear and he was able to hold office. Leo Donofrio outlines all the evidence as to why he was not qualified to hold office.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (current Governor of California) — He’s not qualified to serve as President. He won’t be able to get into office *because* the “facts on the ground” (concerning his qualifications) are *known* and known by a very large number of voters. He can’t go back and say that he’s qualified, because too many have the facts and know the facts and it can very easily be proven. So, in this case — the “facts on the ground” make it so that he is “prohibited holding the office”.
Barack Obama (President on January 20th) — Unknown if he’s qualified to serve as President (no court evidence has been approved or acted upon by a court of law, thus far, and so, “unknown”). Now, there are assertions from paperwork submitted and filed that he is qualified, so the party is “making the assertion” that he *is* qualified and he certainly is making the assertion that he *is* qualified. He’s not saying “I’m ignoring the Constitution and I’m going to do what it says I can’t.” No, that’s not his stance. His stance is “I am qualified per the Constitution.”. So, there are not “facts on the ground” that make it so that anyone has been able to “prove the case” that Obama is not qualified. Thus, his assertions stand and he will be sworn in as the next President of the United States.
I hope that makes it clear what is happening here and in each of those three examples...
What we have going here is (1) the “real” — and then (2) the theoretical. So far, all those who want to have Obama either prevented from holding office or removed from office (if he does get into office) — they’re all operating on the “theoretical” — not the “real”. Until the “theoretical” — becomes — the “real” (by court accepted evidence that they *act upon*) — it will remain in the “theoretical” and nothing will happen.
The image published on the internet is not the document, it is a digitized "picture" of the document.
For one thing, the expert was right, there was no reason to obliterate it on the fightthesmears website and you even point out that several weeks later, the number is shown on the in-the-tank media Factcheck site. Now, at that point what is a matter of faith is that Obama & team didn’t go and GET a number. And all the other evidence that the fightthesmears CoLB and the Factcheck CoLB are both forgeries is compelling, rather than a matter of faith.
It is more likely that the document was scanned and the black box applied to the digitized image, not the document - at least that's what it looked like to me. Why? Because the black box is too black, the color too even, and the edges too crisp.
And that means the only evidence presented to date for his qualification has likely been a forgery, and he does not meet the standard.
It could be a forgery, and then again not. Heres what Sandra Ramsey Lines (Affidavit Supporting Polarik’s Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle), concludes: 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.
In other words, a document published on the internet can't be verified as to authenticity. She doesn't say its a forgery, nor does she say its not, only that it can't be determined one way or another. I have no argument with anything she wrote in her affidavit.
I can’t find when the information about his fathers’ naturalization occurred was revealed either. My guess is that it wasn’t revealed before Chesters’ winning the vice-presidency or before before becoming president after the assassination. Hinman put everyone on the aspect of where he was born, rather than the dual citizenship, so it doesn’t seem like it was brought up.
Chester said, in the LOC papers, that ‘his father kept his records secret, even from me’, if you can believe that.
That was Donofrio who was forwarded the naturalization record. Here it is if you want to look at it:
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/william-arthur-naturalization.pdf
Yeah I looked there. Didn’t see a time when it was stated. Not all that big of a deal.
I don’t know what would have happened if they had disqualified them. Probably would have been a mess, much worse than the voting issues with Gore, but I think it would have been better to stop them and expose the nonsense and corruption with both Democrats and Republicans. The sooner the better, because the longer they wait, the more damage is done.
Who cares if Bobby Jindal gets to be president? There’s no shortage of natural born citizens, the 14th amendment would be unaffected, and citizenship would not be ‘redefined’. It’d be clarified, and there would be less disloyal people attacking the Constitution, at least with respect to the office of president.
It’s all entirely unnecessary though. If you’re honest and honorable, you would never try or allow for the sovereignty of the nation you’re a citizen of to be compromised...
Before people jump in with the ‘what if’ scenarios, I’ll qualify it by limiting it to America... Brutal evil communist dictatorship for example? have at it
We are well past the "theoretical", stage of the game.
There are now multiple challenges in the courts; demanding that Obama produce a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth. His (or the DNC's) lawyers have fought these attempts tooth and nail. There is no excuse for that. None. It is incumbent upon him to prove his eligibility, because he is the only one that can access the necessary legal documents.
The only reason that a candidate (or President Elect) would continue to fight these attempts is because he was not actually born in Hawaii or the information on the long form contradicts the information that is shown on the Certification of Live Birth ( thus proving that Obama produced a fraudulent CoLB to hoodwink the public and possibly even the Government ).
You said — “That is some of the most convoluted nonsense that I have ever read on FR.”
I’ve found that things are only “convoluted nonsense” to those who simply don’t agree. To say “convoluted nonsense” seems to be a “rhetorical device” and “tool” more than anything meaningful or substantial, actually... :-)
—
But, be that as it may, you said — “We are well past the “theoretical”, stage of the game.”
There are two “spheres” that these things are operating in — “the theoretical” (involves speculation, guesses, assertions, explanations, arguments, reasonings, intense desires, etc.) — and then — the “real” (which would involve court decisions taking specified and intended actions, things as they *happen*, accomplished and “historical” actions [like winning an election, being sworn in — after that point, actions based on assertions and no opposition stopping it], and so on).
Now, all these things posted are simply the “theoretical” because they are talk, assertions, reasonings, all “in theory” because *nothing* has happened “in real life” the way the “theoretical” is demanding.
It *becomes* real — when — an court accepts whatever evidence it deems correct and true and then *acts on it*. Then it’s “facts on the ground” from that court action.
You’re still operating in the “theoretical” and have no “real facts on the ground” that show any different.
—
You then said — “The only reason that a candidate (or President Elect) would continue to fight these attempts...”
I can think of several reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications... so, until someone finds out exactly what it says, it’s still “theoretical” and not “facts on the ground” in which you can “do something” with it.
And the “do something” is not the spinning of wheels and filing cases and searching and so on — it’s the *removal from office* or the *preventing from taking office* — that’s the *doing something* that I’m taking about and what would be “real” versus the “theoretical”...
We’re all operating in the “theoretical” — while — Obama is “creating the facts on the ground” (i.e. being sworn in for one thing...).
Humor and serious editorial
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-burned-in-effigy-around-islamic.html
Bobby said he would not run in 2012.
He never said that he would never run.
More nonsense. Pure simple.
There are two “spheres” that these things are operating in — “the theoretical” (involves speculation, guesses, assertions, explanations, arguments, reasonings, intense desires, etc.) — and then — the “real” (which would involve court decisions taking specified and intended actions, things as they *happen*, accomplished and “historical” actions [like winning an election, being sworn in — after that point, actions based on assertions and no opposition stopping it], and so on).
Wrong. Obama has taken a course of action: from the beginning of the campaign, he decided to withhold his long form birth certificate. And now with all these challenges in the courts he has chosen to fight them rather than providing the documents in question. These are deliberate courses of action of his part; not arbitrary. Thus,there must be actual reasons he has chosen to do this.
You’re still operating in the “theoretical” and have no “real facts on the ground” that show any different.
Wrong again. See above. He has deliberately chosen to take a course of action, and even maintain this course of action in the face of all sorts lawsuits issued against him. These are a very big "facts on the ground". These actions require actual motives as well as a lot of money.
I can think of several reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications... so, until someone finds out exactly what it says, it’s still “theoretical” and not “facts on the ground” in which you can “do something” with it.
Bullsh*t. Name them.
It can't be due to financial reasons. And it can't be due to some sort of "privacy" concerns. We already know what kind of information should be on the long form. Unless, of course, he has been lying to us all along.
Come Tuesday, he’ll be sworn in as POTUS. That can’t be stopped. As much as I hope SCOTUS will finally hear this challenge where the two sides duke it out, I fear that SCOTUS will find a reason not to.
- Lurking Libertarian and mlo are correct that the docket entry Distributed for Conference of [date] is standard procedure and probably holds no significance. The clerk of the court makes an entry on the docket indicating when the court will likely consider the case. SCOTUS Case Distribution Schedule
- The docket entry of significance in these cases is instead Application referred to the Court. This entry does indicate that specific and purposeful action was taken by a justice. However, we do not know based on the entry itself why the justice(s) referred the case to the court for discussion at conference. This entry could indicate that the case was also put on the discuss list. This entry is usually not made in the docket until a decision has been made by the court.
"The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court's order."
- Lurking Libertarian, mlo, and I agree that the discuss lists are not made public. We have no way to know which cases have been put on the discuss lists.
- Of note is case #08-519 (not an NBC case) in which a motion for leave to file and amicus curiae was granted and the petition for writ of certiorari was denied at the same time. This is the same thing that happened with Berg's case, so it could be standard procedure.
None of these conclusions is meant to retract or negate the analyses from sources that I published earlier in this thread.
The end result is that the justices did refer the cases (applications) to the court for discussion at conference. Is that significant? You be the judge.
Look at added statistics about California of what the Islamic infiltration can mean in terms and location to which we can relate and understand easily.
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-to-expect-from-islamic.html
I sent the letter because I could not face myself if it were found out Obama was indeed born somewhere other than the U.S. and had not taken part in the process to reveal this.
I wished more people would take part.
Out of all the fellas at work........I'm the only guy that calls, emails and sends letters to various officials.
Like one out of ten fellas. Kinda sad.
Each of these guys will justa moan and whine about current affairs, yet none of them has taken the effort to write.
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.