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 ...
Yup . lets keep a lid on this kind of treasonous thinking, we can't let this get out of hand now can we?
Can't give conservatives any hope or change now can we?
Ahem.
Take a mydol and can it.
If on any thread people are posting stuff from the show, could you ping me?
Thanks for sharing your explanation regarding SCOTUS, Anderson, & Walker.
Is it possible to explain Part (2) of the Walker case (final paragraph of #699) a bit more. In particular, what was the violent reaction of the attorneys involved?
I guess I was traveling when this happened, and therefore I missed it.
Very funny . . . and true.
Is that your original?
I should find a guy drinking coffee and photoshop for me though...certainly my morning attitude!!!
Good graphic. The comment is on loan from Slings and Arrows, we need to ping him.
Hats off to you both, gentlemen for clarification of this ridiculous dialog between plebeians searching for answers to very complex issues.
Now, ALL, instead of questioning each other constantly let us ALL agree to be more civil to each other. The name calling is ridiculous. This is critical time in our country we are facing a constitutional crisis. Stop fighting about the process and unite in fighting the problem. And if you doubt that there is a problem with qualifications check out the INS # presented last evening. It's the data entry that supports the hypothesis.
Jim R. Is it possible to ban some words....Like we did with “Bushbot” on the dose thread. Each side could suggest the most harmful, hurtful they would like to see disappear.
Certainly, the flow of open discussion is positive, but I have been appalled by the Judicial Temperament exhibited by some professed lawyers to lay people who are searching for answers. There is only one person that comes to mind as more arrogant......
Play by play please.
Daddy has not had a good day our conversation is limited.....When he is feeling better we’ll discuss it more.
If it's not been altered, and for most purposes, but not all purposes. Even the State of Hawaii won't accept if for at least some purposes. Similar forms in other states, but AFAIK not Hawaii, will not be accepted for a passport application, because they don't contain enough information to verify citizenship.
Similarly, even Hawaii's short form BC/Certification won't be accepted for a passport if the time between birth and registration is over 1 year.
The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is probably not sufficient to prove Natural Born Citizenship, but that would depend on the criteria a Court finally applies to that test. If one ever does.
Many of us here would like to see a much more courteous discussion with such an important topic and with so few conservatives actively searching for documentable answers.
We are taking the lead on zero's eligibility since talk radio has abandoned us for some unknown reason. Even more reason why we need to stick together and forget about infighting.
Very interesting in deed. I’m still trying to hold out hope for our Constitutional Republic. It’s not as if the laws and “solutions” that Obama is proposing have happened - YET. We’re going to have to be on the lookout no matter what happens with Obama’s Presidency, because the Democrat-controlled Congress is possibly even WORSE due to the laws they are already proposing...
These are scary times, and I hope SCOTUS is aware of the magnitude of these questions before them. I’ll be praying, regardless...
*indeed
Can you quote that part?
I don't think anyone would dispute that at this point, but I think we're getting a little off target. It's not whether they all vote in conference that matters. The question is, does getting shown on the docket as going to conference pass any kind of hurdle?
LL has said that all the cases, even the ones that get denied because no judge put them on the discuss list, are still listed on the conference list and still reported back as denied.
If true, that means the cases we've seen so far could have been cases that were never put on anyone's discuss list.
Thanks for the ping to your great post. I am still hopeful, although anticipate much of this battle to go forward after Obama is sworn in as POTUS. I have been wondering why our republican leaders have been so mute of late and some in fact seem to kiss the marxist ground Obama walks on and then something hit me. At this point, one has to wonder if they know something that we don’t, because if in fact Obama is going to be thrown out of office for being ineligible and perpetrating a fraud on the American people, our country will heal much faster if there is not alot of rancor and blood in the water already.
I know...it’s a ‘hope’ long shot....and chances are greater that our leaders are acting like they have for the last 4 years...like country club RINOS....lol!
From what I have read, the only thing the COLB isn't good for are homestead applications. That's because in Hawaii you need to have Hwaiian ancestry, not just Hawaiian birth, to get a homestead, and the COLB doesn't have enough information to verify Hawaiian ancestry. Are there any other purposes for which Hawaii won't accept it? Please provide your source.
Similarly, even Hawaii's short form BC/Certification won't be accepted for a passport if the time between birth and registration is over 1 year.
Source please.
The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is probably not sufficient to prove Natural Born Citizenship,
Why not? Do you have any sources to back up this claim?
Whether it's been altered is another issue.
I've seen no legitimate documentation that the state of Hawaii does not accept these documents as proof of the facts contained on them. They don't contain every fact about a person, like ancestry beyond the parents, so the program for native Hawaiians that has been cited here repeatedly properly asks for additional documentation. That has nothing to do with not accepting or trusting the birth certificate.
If there are any cites for Hawaiian uses that reject the validity of their own birth certificates, I haven't seen them, and I doubt they exist.
However, note that logically speaking, showing an exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule. A hypothetical program that doesn't accept birth certificates does not mean that birth certificates are not legal proof.
Arguing for forgery is one thing. Arguing that birth certificates aren't really birth certificates comes close to being nonsensical.
A little premature there.
"Now, ALL, instead of questioning each other constantly let us ALL agree to be more civil to each other. The name calling is ridiculous."
Questioning is fine. That's what should be happening. But I'm all for civility, as I've already expressed. I hope people can live up to it.
"And if you doubt that there is a problem with qualifications check out the INS # presented last evening. It's the data entry that supports the hypothesis."
I'm not familiar with whatever you are talking about. Can you enlighten me?
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.