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.

[Star Traveler]

The facts remain to this day — no one has produced any evidence that any court is acting upon, or any evidence that any court has verified, or any court is taking any kind of action towards removing Obama from office. It’s simply not happening. I mean, if something was happening to remove Obama from office, we would all know about it. All we’ve got is simply a lot of people *very opinionated* about what *should* happen — but *nothing* is happening in a practical way (i.e., “removing Obama”...), nothing at all.

Now, the fact that nothing is happening — that the cases are either dismissed, appealed, up for hearing, sent back to lower courts (and “on and on”), plus the Republicans (about every last single one of them) doing nothing, including the President of the United States, and Vice President Cheney, plus McManiac, and his running mate, Governor Palin, and neither the Electoral College voters, or the Congress certifying the vote, or Cheney in accepting the results, or the Supreme Court in not granting any injunctions to stop the inauguration, or the Justice Department in not taking any action to prosecute Obama (and on and on it goes, the list is “big*) — this all leads these *very opiniated* people (and posters) to say — “Oh, they just won’t do their jobs!”... LOL... Now, that’s a “conspiracy-mindedness” for sure...

But, if someone says (like me, for example), “Oh, a state law to properly vet a candidate with specific documentation or they can’t get on the ballot — is needed and we’ve got one going in Oklahoma right now...” — that’s definitely a “troll” and a “disruptor”... (can it get any weirder than that??).

You see..., the very basic problem that all these very *opinionated posters* have is that there is a *hole* in our vetting system that Obama walked straight through — and you can’t close the barn door after the horse has gotten out — and do any good. You’re chasing down a losing battle for something that is “way past that point” now. That’s your problem....

And that’s what gives others something to “point to” and say, “will you look at that conspiracy stuff...”

But, you can’t say that getting a piece of legislation through the Oklahoma legislature, with it already having been sponsored and put in the works, right now — is conspiracy stuff — because that’s “real world” politics and putting real world legislation in place that can “close up the hole” that Obama walked straight through.

There’s just a huge *disconnect from reality* here with some posters going down this track. That’s all I can say about it. You’re letting your *desires* for getting Obama out of office try and “create a reality” where no such reality exists in real life.

Now, you mentioned something about damage to the Constitution. That’s another wild idea that can’t happen without going through “procedures” that will *have to be followed*. You can’t change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it. And it usually takes years (sometimes 7 or more years) to go through the process. And all Amendments to the Constitution just don’t breeze through such a public vote in the various states. So, it’s even crazy to say that Obama is going to do something with the Constitution when you have to get 3/4 of the states to ratify any Amendments.

This is another “unreal’ wild idea that some people are promoting. Nothing is going to change with the Constitution — without the states ratifying it. And I don’t see the states ratifying any changes that mess with the Constitution.

And then you were saying something about the Supreme Court’s job is to make sure Obama is either not in office or taken out of office (whichever way you mean it). Well, the Supreme Court is not going to act upon *anything* like that in regards to Obama, unless there is a specific case before it. And all the cases before it — none of them have a thing to do with a “remedy” of removing a candidate. At most, someone may get standing, and it goes back to a lower court. In the instances where the Supreme Court was actually asked to intervene and block the Electoral College Votes and certification or prevent Obama from being inaugurated, by means of some injunction — the court did *no such thing* — and they’re not going to do any such thing. Y’all are imagining that the Supreme Court is like some John Wayne cowboy, riding in there, both guns blazing and “taking out Obama”... That’s the idea that you’re presenting with these wild schemes about how the Supreme Court is going to act. It just gets more crazy all the time, when your *desires* are so intense that you can’t separate them from *reality* and how *things work* in the real world.

There’s a huge *disconnect* from reality here.

That’s why I’ve said all along to use the method that is most likely to succeed and it’s already working in Oklahoma, even before Obama is even in office. So, that makes a lot of sense to me and is connected to the “real world” in this situation...

[IrishPennant]

Why, why, why why, why do you people insist on commenting on these threads. It was not titled: "Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen - Please Come in and Squash All Hope with your Postings of the Same Life Sucking Nay Saying."

The guys and girls on these threads are doing incredible work and are great fighters of our freedom...they do not accept that a man with such a "Transparent" background, one which also has soooo many contacts that have been proven, yes proven, to be anti-America, should be able to usurp the Constitution.

I would invite any of these brave posters into my fighting hole during combat.

I would be willing to bet that if you and the others who think this is a non-issue were to go off and start your own thread entitled: Proof Obama is Quaified to be the POTUS, they would leave you alone and let you have constructive posts back and forth to each other. Although I would be concerned the number of posts would equal the same as a thread entitled "The World Saving Accomplishments of Pee Wee Herman."

It is, in fact, these types of quibble that get the DU lurkers and trolls into a wonderful tizzy.

I cannot put myself up on the same level as some of those on this thread who have put unimaginable thought and work into following this issue over these many months, but I feel privileged that they let me contribute where and when I can.

God Bless America, Freedom and our Constitution. I spent the majority of my adult life sworn to protect it...I'll bet a number of these folks fighting for it never had to take an oath...they love the United States of America without being asked to swear to it...

[mlo]

"*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth."

All these things are on the birth certificate in question.

"The Certification of Live Birth is a "short (abstract) version"

Based on what? I must not be, because I got a passport with a birth certificate just like it.

[mlo]

"Actually, most birther claims have zero evidence to back them up. Someone at one point made them up out of thin air, and then they get repeated on FR and other sites as if they were gospel truth."

Exactly so. And some of us bother to keep pointing out that these repeatedly made claims are not true. Why? Because they aren't. There doesn't need to be any other reason than that. Truth matters. I would hope that everyone could understand that, regardless of where they come down on the facts here.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I read through our discussion(s) again. I'd like to understand your perspective and reach a determination that we can agree upon, if possible.

Is it your contention that a docket entry of "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [date]" indicates that the case was simply assigned a conference date rather than purposefully selected by a justice for discussion at conference?

[nominal]

this is probably a waste of time, but, here:

1) Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll, Sandler Reiff and Young, Perkins Coie

2,3, and 4)http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html, not the most complete, but it gets you started. Feel free to counter anything there. I’ve yet to see anything... It’s not as if identity theft is impossible, by the way.

[curiosity]

It is corret to say that the certification of live birth Obama made available is indeed a short form version, as it only has the basic information on it. The long-form version has all kinds of other information like the hospital, the attending physician, and the like.

It doesn't matter, however, since the short form version Obama released has all the information necessary to prove he was born in the USA.

[IrishPennant]

I certainly did not accept it on the gospel of people I only know over the internet...I read, researched, went over posts, Googled until my fingertips were red...and came to my own conclusions...so have you. My conclusions agree with the FReepers on this issue of unqualified.

Each new thread has new information but continues forever because ancient FReepers, those beat in to submission by not being able to overcome how the CLINTOONS got over back in the 90's, continually stop progressive thought and ask these boys and girls to re-prove and repost data that was found long ago ...and when no one wants to bother, they are just labeled as TINFOILS...

You have made your decision...Free Republic was founded on the basis of Rooting out Political Fraud and Corruption...let them do that here without constant interruption and quibble.

With all do respect, your lack of positive input is not championing your fear that FR looks like a right wing nuthouse...you are creating that by allowing the DU lurkers and trolls to joyfully watch the in-house turmoil. Please start your own posts or join others that are not on these CoLB issues and save yourself the strife. Ignore them, please!

[mlo]

"But, you can’t say that getting a piece of legislation through the Oklahoma legislature, with it already having been sponsored and put in the works, right now — is conspiracy stuff — because that’s “real world” politics and putting real world legislation in place that can “close up the hole” that Obama walked straight through."

This is important. There's probably something we can all agree on here. Someone said to me, be part of the solution. The question is, solution to what?

Well if there's one certain fact revealed by all this it's that there should be a defined procedure for qualifying candidates for constitutional offices, and they should be required to prove their qualifications and not just swear to them.

I would love to see a law like this proposal in Oklahoma pass in every state. As a practical matter, we only need it in a few states, or even just one big one.

If you want to be part of the solution, push to get this done.

[Kevmo]

There is no statute, no case law, and no person with standing which requires production of documents of a President-Elect.
***Buncha baloney, especially in light of the 20th amendment which takes priority over statutes because the constitution is the highest law of the land. The “no case law” thing is a red herring. There’s very little case law covering the 3rd amendment but if some army general said you had to put up his friends for a year rent free, the constitution has plenty to say about that. The lack of case law is a sign that this area of the constitution hasn’t been tested.

On what basis is it “their job”?
***Common Sense. Precedence. 20th Amendment. Congressman Billybob’s prior comments. The same basis established in Marbury v Madison. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure the lawyer dudes will fill in the blanks for you.

There is no duly-constituted authority which has requested or required Obama to do what you want.
***The duly constituted authority is the constitution. It is the highest law of the land and it states the requirements for eligibility.

The Supreme Court is not a free-ranging Committee of Public Safety.
***And a big giant “so what” to that. There’s a lot of things the SCOTUS is not.

It’s not like the French Cour de Cassation, which (descended from the revolutionary CPS) has the very powers you want the USSC to exercise.
***Lawyer dude weigh-in time, since I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[mlo]

"Okay, I gottcha. No, there is not a specific sentence in the document that says, “All cases are not put on the conference list.”"

Just to clarify, because I know some can take it the wrong way...

I didn't mean you should produce an exact quote of those words. The quote marks were just me quoting what you said. All I'm asking is if there is a passage in the document that means the same thing.

Barring that, the quote I saw didn't mean that, and we haven't seen anything that says same cases do not appear on the conference list.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “If you want to be part of the solution, push to get this done.”

Agreed..., and the Oklahoma legislature goes into session next month. I’ll be contacting legislators about that one.

[curiosity]

Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll, Sandler Reiff and Young, Perkins Coie

Okay, so lawyers on retainer working for Obama and the DNC filed a brief. So what? How does that prove he's spent "millions" on the lawsuits?

As to your link, it's argument pretty much rests in argument on the following claim:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

Which is true. The only trouble, it wasn't true in 1961. The law that allows foreign births to be registered in Hawaii wasn't passed until 1982, which can be clearly seen here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

That means it wasn't possible in 1961 to register a foreign birth in Hawaii, which in turn means if Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate on file (as has been verified), it proves he was born in Hawaii.

The rest of the article is just a bunch of unsupported assertions which are in fact not true. For example, it says:

The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.

Which is simply untrue. For the purposes of proving birth in Hawaii, the certified copy of the birth record is just as good as the vault copy.

[Velveeta]

I’m tired, so I’ll just take number 4:

Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.

Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration, the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.

How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:

notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth, and
instructions on procedures for and submission of required documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.

Further Information and Assistance
For information, call (808) 586-4540 during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. HST).

Counter service is available Monday - Friday, except holidays, from 7:45 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Appointments are preferred.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html

Regards,
“Birther”

[Kevmo]

The facts remain to this day — no one has produced any evidence that any court is acting upon,
***Ahhhh, now we start to see the qualifiers upon your original statement, which I properly identified as trollish. Otherwise you wouldn’t be putting qualifiers on it. As far as acting upon, there has been 5 forwards for conference, which by my earlier analysis is a 0.3^5 chance of happening for any case, less than 2 tenths of a percent chance.

or any evidence that any court has verified,
***That’s because they all see a huge political hot potato that no one wants to deal with so they push it up the chain citing “lack of standing”.

or any court is taking any kind of action towards removing Obama from office.
***Argument from silence. You don’t know this is true. Yet.

It’s simply not happening.
***Again an argument from silence. Typical of trolls like you.

I mean, if something was happening to remove Obama from office, we would all know about it.
***Straw argument. First, you can’t remove him from office until he’s in office. Second, the proper procedure is to go through the SCOTUS and we all DO know some of it. Third, there are things we can’t know and your continued arguments from silence of what we cannot know — your presumption that we would know it — is continued evidence of your trollhood.

All we’ve got is simply a lot of people *very opinionated* about what *should* happen
***Nothing wrong with that, being very opinionated on a constitutional forum regarding a constitutional crisis. What is your freeping problem?

— but *nothing* is happening in a practical way (i.e., “removing Obama”...), nothing at all.
***Again with that “nothing” thing. Soon you’ll need to qualify that statement because you’ll realize it shows you to be a troll engaging in hyperbolic straw argumentation. Don’t you ever argue legitimately? Take a critical thinking class, Mr. Alien Abduction Troll. As far as the rest of your post, it’s too long winded so I’ll be breaking up the response into separate paragraphs.

[curiosity]

Please start your own posts or join others that are not on these CoLB issues and save yourself the strife. Ignore them, please!

What, and let tinfoil hat nonsense spewed in the name of conservatism go unchallanged? Never!

It is not in my nature to allow idiots preach to the converted. I tried saying a way, but I just couldn't help myself. Call it a weakness.

It amuses me how much tinfoilhatters like you enjoy preaching to the converted. It amuses me even more to see your panties get tied into a knot every time someone challanges your "facts."

[Velveeta]

Nobody said he’s spent “millions”. However, he’s hired 3 lawfirms - that’s FIRMS who’ve been responding to the legal issues for the last 4+ months.

That certainly amounts to a larger amount than paying $12.00 for a copy of the original certificate.

[mlo]

Every posted example of these late birth certifcates that I've seen, clearly identifies it for what it is. They were all also quite old.

Do you have any example of a late birth certificate from the era of 1961, that could be confused with a regular birth certificate?

Is there any indication, anywhere in the law or regulations, that says a late birth certificate will lie about the place of birth?

[Star Traveler]

When one doesn’t take to “common sense” about something — the best answer is to “wait and see”.

So, it would seem that for you, the best answer is simply going to be — “we’ll see if it works out the way you say — or — it works out the way I say it will...”

—

I’ll be talking my common sense and I guess you’ll be talking yours, too, won’t you. I’m confident that my common sense thinking will actually be the “real life situation” that we see actually transpires...

[mlo]

They’ve said he spent a million.

A copy of the birth certificate was provided.