Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Fort Hard Knox ^ | January 7, 2009 | Arlen Williams

[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.

[El Gato]

Please note that I didn't say how it worked in every place. But what I described is how it works in a lot of places. Including Hawaii, and my county in California.

California is one of the states, Texas is another, whose "short form"/abstract Birth Certificate is not sufficient, by itself, to prove citizenship for purposes of getting a passport. Thus there must be a way, which might take longer and/or cost more, to get a copy of the long form version.

Similarly, Hawaii itself will not take a Certification of Live Birth for purposes of eligibility for their Hawaiian lands program, but they will take the long form "Certificate of Live Birth".

[El Gato]

What would you call J. Brennan’s mysterious kill-your-babies penumbra? Arbitary, although in the manner of the 16 y/o driving laws, or 21 y/o drinking laws. Not completely random, but not really scientific either.

The state of knowledge back then was not what it is today. I think an objective look based on today's knowledge, not including the moral dimension, would probably result in much more restrictive rules in terms of the times when abortion would be unrestricted, which times it could be highly regulated, and when it could be prohibited entirely.

As I recall the rules set up under Roe v. Wade, were (more or less): no restrictions in the first trimester, restrictions allowed in the second, and prohibition allowed in the third. Of course that is not the current state, which is pretty much unrestricted right up to live birth, with "birth" being rather loosely defined.

[El Gato]

But if you have citizenship by birth you are a natural born citizen.

Your definition perhaps, but the historical record has slightly more restrictive ones. The least restrictive of those requires *either* birth in the US or incorporated territories, or birth to a US Citizen father. Other sources, from which the court would need to select, require birth to two US Citizen parents, and the most restrictive requires that birth to two citizen parents to be on US territory. None of them include citizenship at birth by virtue of statute law. But even if the did, Obama might not be a citizen at birth under the laws then in force.

[rodguy911]

You mean get rid of democrats! We will that’s what we are all about!!

[hoosiermama]

Understand what you are saying, but it is evident that there are numerous people signed up on FR who's entire purpose seems to be to disrupt the BC thread.....

Surely something other than banning can be done, so those who want to seriously discuss legal, constitutional issues can do so.

[hoosiermama]

IIRC Democrats are not the only ones involved..... SOme Republican hands are just as dirty.

[Jim Robinson]

Ignoring minor annoyances is an effective but often underutilized weapon in the fine art of political debate.

[WestCoastGal]

From Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/obamaspeech.asp

Be aware everyone!

[El Gato]

But that's why there's the added provision of the state confirming the birth certificate.

I want them to confirm the information on the BC, not just the fact of it's existence. It's completely possible to have a BC on file with the state of Hawaii, and not be a natural born citizen, so merely confirming that the state has one on file is not sufficient. If the state sent a copy of the BC to interested/concerned parties, then that would at least be sufficient to prove where he was born, who his father was (and was he a citizen or not). Those are enough to determine natural born citizenship, under any of the alternate definitions.

[little jeremiah]

You forgot the part where she says she can’t confirm what the COLB status emailed to her - the posted on the internet - is.

[rodguy911]

Agreed we want to get rid of the rinos as well.
And as you say there really is no room for corrupt pubbies anyway.

[MHGinTN]

As I recall, many of the Rudybots had early sign-up dates, too.

[unspun]

Well, educate the reader if I may. Roe v. Wade was evil in itself, but was also a trojan horse for Doe v. Bolton, which allowed all abortion at all times, for the all-excusing "health of the mother."

It was an activist move, by the far-left and is a part of the Marxist plans that were revealed in congressional hearing in 1963, in Frank Marshal Davis' writing, etc., the sexual revolution part of the neo-Marxist movement.

As for any basis in the Constitution, it was utterly baseless. It is not arbitrary, in that it is according to a plan. Better words would be insurgent and destructive.

Blackmun was an insurgent of one kind of another. That is self-evident.

Any review of Roe/Doe as a part of an intellectually honest treatment of the Constitution is either dishonest in itself, or duped by the deceit -- and the more educated the fools involved in either, the more foolish they are.

[little jeremiah]

>>>> All that has been confirmed is that the information that is on the COLB is drawn from the actual long-form certificate and that the original long-form certificate exists<<<<

I have never seen that quoted from the HI officials and have tried to read as much as I can. Do you have a source?

[editor-surveyor]

- ! -

[El Gato]

All that has been confirmed is that the information that is on the COLB is drawn from the actual long-form certificate and that the original long-form certificate exists.

Actually only the latter has been confirmed. They did not, and under the law of Hawaii could not, confirm that what is on the image of the Certification of Live Birth is the same as on the "vault" or "long form" Certificate of Live Birth. That's why we, or just a court of competent jurisdiction, need(s) to see a certified copy of the Certificate.

[little jeremiah]

I wasn’t clear -I meant that yes, the info on COLBs is taken from the long form; but that HI officials never stated (that i ever read) the info on 0bama’s COLB on the websites actually contained the same info that is on the vault copy.

[OneTimeComment]

Am I incorrect then, that Obama got his first passport when he became a U.S. senator? I thought I read that. This really is madness, as candidates should be vetted when they file papers to run. Since that is not being done, Obama should do what McCain did and submit documents.

[ml/nj]

The only suspicion of fraud I see in the air is here.

I guess you are blind then.

There's no real mystery about the differnt forms. It works pretty much like it works in most jurisdictions. When you are born someone fills out a form and it is filed away. When you request a copy of your birth certificate they don't just photo copy that form. They create a new certificate containing the data from the original. That's how I got my birth certificate, that's probably how it works for most people.

Hello, Kool-aid drinker?

The two different certificate images presented, were obviously attempts at fraud. You cannot seriously suggest that 0bama obtained two different documents from Hawaii over the course of a couple of months.

Suggesting that no one gets a copy od the original is similarly disingenuous on your part. I have mine. I suspect most other FReepers do too.

Oh. They weren't born in Hawaii? This guy was.

ML/NJ

[unspun]

Perhaps it should be called Obama’s Dearth Certificate.

Maybe I will.

cc: hoosiermama, due to lexicological interest. ;-`