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 ...
The image published on the internet is not the document, it is a digitized “picture” of the document.
***POTO. Doesn’t address the contention.
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 is an excellent description of “obliterate”. And, again, it doesn’t address the contention.
It could be a forgery,
***Pretty much the only thing you’ve gotten right.
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.
***Sounds a lot like what I just said. And this time it’s an expert signing her credibility away in an affidavit.
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,
***why do you need other words? Her evidence is quite damning.
a document published on the internet can’t be verified as to authenticity.
***And that is EXACTLY what I said. It’s the only evidence offered towards Obama’s eligibility and this expert says it’s basically worthless.
She doesn’t say its a forgery,
***She says it cannot be relied upon.
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.
***then... don’t.
I'm not, but then I'm not reading any more into what she's written than what's actually there either.
SCOTUS doesn't need a reason to not hear a case.
My guess is that the legal work done is pro bono and Obama hasn't spent a cent.
I’m not, but then I’m not reading any more into what she’s written than what’s actually there either.
***Sure you are. The expert says it’s not reliable evidence and you’re doing your best to argue around that.
By agreeing with the expert? That seems like a strange way to "argue around" it.
The expert did not say it was a forgery. What the expert said would apply just as well to a perfectly valid birth certificate, which was scanned, redacted, and posted on the internet.
Instead of arguing just to be contrary, you can prove this wrong by citing a single instance of the expert endorsing any specific allegation of forgery.
You’ve got the facts now, but you don’t understand them.
It is a birth certificate. It is one possible form that a birth certificate can take. Nobody is claiming that it is identical to some other form.
All I'm saying is that it is in itself, regardless of what other forms and what other documents exist, prima facie proof of the data it contains. The document itself states that. Arguing against it is really silly.
One more time…It is NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It is a VERIFICATION IN LIEU OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE or CERTIFICATION. It is a state issued abstract of a birth record which may or may not be authentic or amended. It merely states that there is a record on file but does not provide proof of its veracity, how it was filed, any amendments that have been made to it and crucial information which can prove or disprove its authenticity.
WHY is it not sufficient? That's what you aren't getting. It's not because of some problem with the certificate. It's not because it isn't proof. It's only because *with this particular program* it takes more than Hawaiian birth to qualify. It takes proof of ancestry.
It would be like applying for food stamps and having to prove income in addition to identity. It doesn't mean your identity document isn't trusted. It just means income also matters.
You’re wrong. The problem with the short form is the information that is NOT ON IT. The DHHL explains this in plain English:
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).. Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
Red pill.
Read the document. It is a certification of the facts on it. It IS a birth certificate. Does it answer every question you can think of asking? No. So what?
"You’re wrong. The problem with the short form is the information that is NOT ON IT. The DHHL explains this in plain English: "
You say I'm wrong, then don't post anything that disputes me. I KNOW it's about the information not on it. That's what I'm telling you. This particular program requires additional information because of what the program is.
It has nothing to do with the reliability of the document. It does not say a birth certificate can't be trusted, isn't reliable, or isn't proof. It doesn't even reject it. It just says giving them the other will save you time and money.
Read this for content. If you want to say I'm wrong about it, post something that actually contradicts me.
What does "not reliable" mean to you?
What does “not reliable” mean to you?
***What difference does it make what it means to me? The issue is what it means to the court. The court has a direct assertion in front of it that the documentation provided towards the eligibility of Obama is not reliable.
The expert did not say it was a forgery.
***The expert said it was not reliable.
Instead of arguing just to be contrary, you can prove this wrong by citing a single instance of the expert endorsing any specific allegation of forgery.
***Why would I go down any idiotic rabbit holes that you set up? Moving the goalposts. Obfuscation. Probably several other classical fallacies as well, but from your past postings it looks like you won’t catch on to the importance of avoiding fallacies.
Conrats, you are the most boring poster on FR in both style and substance.
You said — “Conrats, you are the most boring poster on FR in both style and substance.”
Well..., I’m surprised my post got a response out of you, then... :-)
"The expert did not say it was a forgery."
"***The expert said it was not reliable."
Yes, we got that. Does that mean "forgery", or does it mean what SHE SAID IT MEANT?
"Instead of arguing just to be contrary, you can prove this wrong by citing a single instance of the expert endorsing any specific allegation of forgery."
"***Why would I go down any idiotic rabbit holes that you set up?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe to prove the point YOU are trying to make? In order to make sense?
"Moving the goalposts. Obfuscation. Probably several other classical fallacies as well, but from your past postings it looks like you won’t catch on to the importance of avoiding fallacies."
You write the above and talk to me about fallacies? You don't know what you are talking about. You just like to label anything you don't like a "fallacy".
So far the court isn't interested.
Does that mean “forgery”, or does it mean what SHE SAID IT MEANT?
***It means it is not reliable, with the obvious implications of forgery. So, does it “mean” forgery? Hell yes. Is that what she wrote? No, she wrote in CYA legalspeak.
“Instead of arguing just to be contrary,
***BTW, that’s another fallacy... poisoning the well.
Kevmo: Why would I go down any idiotic rabbit holes that you set up?”
mlo: Oh, I don’t know.
***Then get lost.
Maybe to prove the point YOU are trying to make?
***Bull shiite. You twist it around to try to get someone to prove a negative and make it look like the point you’re trying to make.
In order to make sense?
***Why should I bother, with you? I don’t respond to try to convince you because, with all your logical fallacies and classic behaviors, you aren’t convince-able. I do it so the lurkers can judge for themselves.
You write the above and talk to me about fallacies?
***Yes.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
***Ahah. Lurkers will see here that mlo didn’t bother to go about showing any fallacies on my part. Misdirection.
You just like to label anything you don’t like a “fallacy”.
***Well, I challenged you to a debate about the credibility/legitimacy of this topic and you declined, continuing in your classic behaviors. So now i will challenge you to a debate about logical fallacies. We’ll go through your posts and my posts in the last 100 days or so and walk through any fallacies we may find. We can use, say Wikipedia as the source for the definition of fallacies. That is, unless you have a better source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I’ll leave it to you how the winner is decided and how to arbitrate this challenge. You’ll wimp out of it anyways, so I’m not going to put any more effort into this challenge.
So far the court isn’t interested.
***That doesn’t make it morally right, nor does it bolster your point. The issue is that the court has the assertion in front of it. The fact that the court hasn’t done its job and has betrayed the trust of those who rely upon it to defend the constitution doesn’t mean it wasn’t right there in front of them to examine.
To equate "not reliable" with "forgery" is a logical fallacy. The image published on the internet does not pretend to be the document; it is a reproduction of the certified copy.
Perhaps when one of the justices retires from the Court and writes a book we may discover the thinking behind the inaction; until then all we have is speculation.
Perhaps when one of the justices retires from the Court and writes a book we may discover the thinking behind the inaction; until then all we have is speculation.
***POTO. And your point is?
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.