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 Obamanoids have a major problem with truth ... they don’t recognize it or acknowledge it, so they don’t honor it. It is the alinsky model, use the respect others have for the truth to hold them to that standard but absolutely do not operate or orient to that standard.
Chill on the personal attacks.
Yes, that was the first thing I said when I saw the Daily Kos COLB. Then came the hard part: proving it. Confirmation is always a good thing. Just FYI - before I came to FR I was following and commenting on Polarik’s analysis through TexasDarlin’s blog and the Atlas Shrugs blog. IIRC there was another imaging specialist named “techdude” that Polarik blew out of the water. The details are a bit fuzzy at this point - there has been so much discussion since then.
I think I remember you. TechDude tried to pass off the 2008 COLB border as being the same as the 2006 and 2007. When I got my hands on a real 2007 COLB, and found that it resembled Obama's COLB, the jig was up.
Chill button pushed - humbly
One of the most striking pieces of information about the border on that COLB is the fact that the border was not pre-printed on the form (according to Hawaii’s Dept. of Health), which means that the design of the border was programmed into the software that prints the data on the COLB form.
Therefore, the border design can be changed only by a change to the software that prints it. Once that change is programmed and tested, all subsequently printed forms would have the same border design until the software was changed again.
It is beyond unlikely that the State of Hawaii has component-based software where the border design is selectively interchangeable resulting in multiple border designs per year.
The border is a hand-drawn graphic which remains unchanged for two years, at a minimum. Switching them during the year would defeat the purpose of having a standardized border.
Hawaii uses some kind of form-fillable template (of which there are many off-the-shelft products) that, except for the borders, remained unchanged from 2001 until 2007. For some reason, not only was the border changed for 2008, but also the aspect ratio of the form (the prior layout is about 96% the size of the 2008 template).
Jeepers, Kevmo! Thank you so very much for the vote of confidence, but I truly do not feel qualified for such a task.
Well there’s a bible verse about “surely you shall judge angels” and there’s another about settling things between believers & choosing an arbiter or something like that, so I try to implement it. No one ever goes through with it because they’re typically not willing to have the disagreement settled. The bible calls us to be self-policing, basically.
This would be a great approach for arbitration of disputes within FR but no one would accept it, least of all the mods.
And I throw you my support/confidence whenever I think to. I’m a fan.
But with regard to Obama's birth certificate, there are two aspects - one concerning facts which can be sought out by any Christian but the other is a matter of federal law. I don't speak "legalese."
I don’t speak “legalese.”
***In such a situation you would not have to. The dispute is over whether or not the Obama Eligibility Issue is a Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Nonsense or a Legitimate Constitutional Issue. All you’d need is common sense to arrive at a decision. If it needed someone who spoke legalese, I wouldn’t even be involved in the dispute. At any rate, mlo has delivered crickets on the proposal.
When you resort to these tactics you've already lost the debate.
I humored you for a bit, answered your questions, hoping it would lead to something more rational. Instead you edited out parts of my answers and continued the attack.
The question is not a matter of whether "troll" is an allowable insult. It's a question of using insults in place of rational debate.
I am not the issue. The facts are the issue. I no more need to justify my existence on these threads than you do. In fact, if anyone is a "troll", your recent conduct tags you.
I'm not going to humor you any longer. I will engage in reasoned, rational debate about this issue on the threads where it is a topic. You are free to do the same. When you and your friends sling insults instead, I will point out that is an admission that you can't argue the subject on its merits.
Then I gather you don’t want to have a debate duel.
Calling us tinfoil hat conspiracists is sticking to the facts but calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate.”
The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it. mlo, on the other hand, has used classical fallacies. If he wants to show point-by-point how his reply was edited and that did not reflect his original meaning, I’m all ears and will respond to his original meaning. But I have no confidence that mlo will do that because what he says is a twisting of the truth. If he really wanted to stop being called a troll, he would take me up on my offer. I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage. Until we get some honorable way to compel the others to stop acting that way, we are stuck fighting fire with fire. I and others have asked JimRob for relief against the trolls. In one instance I got the troll “searchin” exposed for keyword abuse, but when the abuse started up again, whoever the admin mod was on duty was not so inclined. Nor was JimRob. The sad state of argumentation is due to the lack of consistent moderating.
One further thing. Free Republic needs a definition of troll, both for the obvious newbie DU troll or an issue-specific troll. The admin mods can decide for themselves if a person who’s been brought to their attention meets that definition, which would be out in the open.
For the various CertifiGate ping lists... to consider my idea of establishing an FR definition of troll. If this issue is too heated to get a start on it, we can all go ahead and start on it on January 21.
MHGinTN; little jeremniah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
No, because you are trying to make me the issue instead of the facts.
"Calling us tinfoil hat conspiracists is sticking to the facts"
I never called you that.
"...but calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate.”"
Yes, that's right.
"The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it."
No, you haven't. Calling names, attacking the poster, attempting to block contrary opinions, are not rational debate.
"...mlo, on the other hand, has used classical fallacies."
No, I have not. But if you believe I do, then your task is to challenge them rationally. Not call names or try to block the contrary opinion.
"If he wants to show point-by-point how his reply was edited and that did not reflect his original meaning, I’m all ears and will respond to his original meaning. But I have no confidence that mlo will do that because what he says is a twisting of the truth."
I'm not going to go point by point because this is all a diversion. One example will do.
You edited, "Chemtrails? I don't think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes." to "Chemtrails? I don't think so.", dropping off the second sentence that didn't help your point. And you want to say I'm twisting?
I haven't twisted a damn thing.
"I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage."
What you want is to prevent people from disagreeing, just like a typical leftist. That speaks for itself.
Once again, all this nonsense is not the issue. It is a diversion from the issues. Note that it's not me attempting the diversion. I will not continue a debate with you about who should be posting. We can debate the CertifiGate issues where they belong.
No, because you are trying to make me the issue instead of the facts.
***No, I’m making the legitimacy of this subject the issue.
I never called you that.
***I’m too lazy to look it up, so I’ll settle with how often we’ve seen it on these threads by your friends. But you did call credibility into question. Now you don’t want to go down that path.
"No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can."
***Not true, answer has already been posted to you and yet the dog returns to its vomit. Like I said, Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”.
I don't know what answer you are refering to. Conference is where the court decides to take a case or not. Getting to conference only means the case was properly filed, it has nothing to do with merits.
If BillyBob wants to clarify his comment, that's up to him. I hope he does.
"Being sent to conference doesn’t mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It’s just the procedure."
"***I note that you simply overlook the argument that there are 17 cases in the pipeline. That means this is not a basic conspiracy issue, it’s a legitimate constitutional issue."
I skipped it because it's not an argument. 17 cases in the pipeline just means that someone has filed 17 cases. How many have had any positive action?
"So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue"
Facts. Show me a correct, legal basis for a case against Obama's eligibility. Suspicion is not a case. Misunderstanding the law, or birth records, is not a case. Show me a real case and I'll say it's a real issue.
calling you a troll is “using an insult in place of rational debate....Yes, that’s right.
***Caveat FReeptor. FReepers will note that I only start using insults after rational debate has been thrown out the window by my debating opponent. And if mlo wants to put an end to it, he will take me up on my debate offer.
Kevmo: “The lurkers will note that I have conducted very rational debate and would stand by it.”
mlo: No, you haven’t.
***You’re not a lurker. Or do you forget that interesting little tidbit?
Calling names, attacking the poster, attempting to block contrary opinions, are not rational debate.
***Then take me up on my challenge. It should be easy to blow out someone who fits such an irrational image of debater.
No, I have not. But if you believe I do, then your task is to challenge them rationally.
***I have challenged your classical fallacies.
Not call names or try to block the contrary opinion.
***Feel free to engage with me on a debate over the credibility of this issue and if you win, you knock me out of posting on these threads. AFter all, if the issue is deemed tinfoil-hat-conspiracy material, I’m not going to want to dignify it.
I’m not going to go point by point because this is all a diversion. One example will do.
***Ahh... cherry picking. A fine tradition of the dishonorable debater.
You edited, “Chemtrails? I don’t think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes.” to “Chemtrails? I don’t think so.”, dropping off the second sentence that didn’t help your point. And you want to say I’m twisting?
***I don’t follow. Give us the link. We can all see it for ourselves and I can respond or clarify as necessary.
I haven’t twisted a damn thing.
***Sure you have. Look how you’ve twisted a straightforward challenge into making it all about you, for starters.
Kevmo: “I really do want the certifigate threads to stop being denigrated as tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage.”
mlo: What you want
***My, what a marvelous example of twisting you have just given all of us. And it includes mind reading as well. My goodness, is that a classical fallacy?
is to prevent people from disagreeing, just like a typical leftist. That speaks for itself.
***Well, now, further name calling. Now I can see why you do not want to engage with me on a moderated debate.
Once again, all this nonsense is not the issue. It is a diversion from the issues.
***If that were your concern, you’d have taken me up on my offer in a nanosecond.
Note that it’s not me attempting the diversion. I will not continue a debate with you about who should be posting. We can debate the CertifiGate issues where they belong.
***Blah blah, I think at this point you’re wandering into non sequitur land, but... thanks for providing the shining examples of your twisting, fallacies, and name calling.
It never happened. You can't look it up.
"...But you did call credibility into question."
I said that if this subject went unchallenged on FR that it would harm credibility to outside observers because of the way they perceive this issue. That is true.
It’s obvious you will just continue twisting anything I say so further responses on this subject will be useless.
The same amount you will agree to donate if the Supreme Court denies all pending cases and Chief Justice Roberts swears Obama in on schedule.
I know, that is what "prima facie" means. Suspicion would not be enough to invalidate it.
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.