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.

[curiosity]

This is very typical of birther tactics. Point to some irrelevant provision in the law and pretend it proves your assertion, when in fact it doesn't. 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.

Since Obama's birth was registered in August 1961, before he was 1, as clearly seen on the document he made available to various media outlets, the Certification of Hawaiian Birth program was obviously not applicable to his case.

Next.

[curiosity]

They’ve said he spent a million.

Who said he spent a million?

[hoosiermama]

We've missed you.

A new law in each state certainly is one solution. Up to this point the legislative branch of government has not dealt with the issue. If indeed it is their job.

The SoS certainly did not have it in their job description. It may have to go back to the judicial branch to determine consistency and who is responsible to vet the candidates.

It was that reason that we turned to the judicial branch. Did I ever give you the letter I sent to the SCOTUS. Here's a taste, I think we agree.

Our Forefather’s in their wisdom established our government in three parts to check and balance each other. They specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president. You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately they did not establish who would vet each candidate to determine eligibility.
Nor did they establish “standing” if such a case were ever to be presented.. Standing , a arbitrary term established for the smooth working of the judiciary system, is not a condition established by the Constitution
... “We The People” are about to be in crisis if you chose to ignore these cases. We the People all have standing.
The SCOTUS must put this crisis to rest. ... A “rule of Law” one way or the other must be decided. The Constitution must remain intact, only qualified persons shall hold the office of the Presidency.

[Peter Libra]

On the short or abstract form of live birth.

Of course the accuracy of such depends on the integrity of the archivist or research person. What were they actually looking at to copy? At this time there is no real check on this, save trust in what must be an extremely important document.

To my chagrin, when someone kindly showed the authorization of that particular document (Barack Obama) it was on the reverse side. The signature was of an important and qualified individual. That settles the matter, said I and breathed a sigh of relief.

My dismay was that the signature was a routine statement made with a rubber stamp. This included the signature of Dr Onaka. There is no way in a court of law, the good Dr (not a medical doctor) could be held liable for a rubber stamp signature.

I asked then and maybe he has, verified what was apparently his authority, at least verbally.

[IrishPennant]

First, calling people Idiots says volumes about you

Second, thanks for admitting you do it just to get your jollies

Third, CONVERTED - I already thought that word myself...only I would bet I have an entirely different interpretation of just what you have converted to.

That said, you seem like an intelligent person...go find a thread where your escalated sense of deciding what is best for the country can help others decide whether clear plastic slip covers can still work on the furniture in the "Courting Room."

Good day, sir...

[Kevmo]

Now, the fact that nothing is happening
***Again the hyperbolic straw argument, you might want to start couching your terms and adding qualifiers... troll.

— that the cases are either dismissed, appealed, up for hearing, sent back to lower courts (and “on and on”),
***If cases are up for hearing or sent back to lower courts, how is that “nothing”? It isn’t. Geez, take that critical thinking class.

plus the Republicans (about every last single one of them) doing nothing, including the President of the United States,
***Not his job, it’s the SCOTUS’s job.

and Vice President Cheney,
***See above. Gee, you’re long winded.

plus McManiac,
***This statement is just freeping precious. I’ll just keep it at that in the hopes that you continue to pursue this angle.

and his running mate, Governor Palin, and neither the Electoral College voters,
***At least one EC voter published his thinking on this topic, and another said he’d be filing an affidavit in one of the cases against Obama. I don’t know if he ever did.

or the Congress certifying the vote,
***Yeah, right... the democratic congress. Geez, you really are clueless, aren’t you, Alien boy?

or Cheney in accepting the results,
***Count me among the disappointed but see above, it’s the SCOTUS’s job.

or the Supreme Court in not granting any injunctions to stop the inauguration,
***Read the 20th amendment. Qualification happens after he becomes president elect and before the inauguration, which is right now. They waited until Berg had standing and sent it back to the lower courts to deal with.

or the Justice Department in not taking any action to prosecute Obama
***Not their job. yet.

(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...
***That’s not a conspiracy. It’s an observation of human nature. No one wanted to cross Al Capone when he was operating, because the repercussions were obvious. So are the repercussions to crossing zer0bama if he were to become president, the most powerful person in the world.

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??).
***Now you’re being disingenuine because I encouraged you in that effort. I said that your argument is a classic fallacy to assume that our efforts are mutually exclusive of yours. Go and do that thing you think will be so effective and we’ll stick to our plan. The fact that you continue to operate on these threads shows that you ARE a disruptor.

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.
***We’re in the middle of closing the barn door right on the horse. Giving up now and disrupting us defenders of the constitution is outright cowardice and trollish.

You’re chasing down a losing battle for something that is “way past that point” now. That’s your problem....
***Tomorrow SCOTUS reviews Berg AGAIN. That is not “way past”, that is STILL PENDING. Go do your thing, troll, we’ll see you in 4 years. If we need you.

And that’s what gives others something to “point to” and say, “will you look at that conspiracy stuff...”
***Oh, and the alien abduction stuff is so above board and “without a doubt”. Geez, you’re a loon.

[mlo]

"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?"

Pretty much, yes. It's been said that every case goes on the conference list, but that only cases on the discuss list actually get talked about and voted on. I think that makes perfect sense.

More importantly, before someone can say these cases have gone through anything but the most minimal procedure required to dismiss them, they have to show that something like the above is wrong. That somebody had to take some action based on the merits.

[curiosity]

Nobody said he’s spent “millions”.

Birther hero Allan Keyes said it, and lots of Freeper birthers have repeated it.

However, he’s hired 3 lawfirms - that’s FIRMS who’ve been responding to the legal issues for the last 4+ months.

Sure, his campaign and the DNC had lawfirms working on retainer for them, just like every other campaign, and they had to respond to the lawsuit one way or the other. Because they're working on retainer, it's very unlikely responding to the lawsuit caused them to spend any money they otherwise wouldn't have had to spend.

[nominal]

I knew this was a waste of time. I did not say how much was spent. It’s speculation, since the only people who know are the law firms and Obama (accountants or whomever). The real point, if you can get past your nitpicking about dollar amounts, which you can’t really refute without having the bills in hand, is that it costs more to have 3 law firms working for you than it does to send a copy of a birth certificate, which would start to resolve the entire situation. Do you dispute that?

What were the statutes in 1961, if you think that was 1982 or have changed since 1961? Show me those... Then I’ll consider your inferences.

There is a difference in the amount of information between the two documents, which is clearly seen if you look at both of them side by side, and the certification does not reflect any additions or changes to the records, nor does it show if the birth was out of state, residence requirements, and evidence submitted if this was the case, etc...

[mlo]

"Who said he spent a million?"

It's a repeated claim that's been posted over and over. I've never seen any documentation that he's spent a dollar, and I seriously doubt he's spent much at all.

[Kevmo]

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.
***I have encouraged you in that effort. Learn to read. But the hole is not closed up until January 20, so why don’t you just get lost until then?

There’s just a huge *disconnect from reality* here with some posters going down this track.
***That’s just freeping hilarious, coming from an alien abductee dude.

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.
***Maybe you’re engaging in a bit of projection here. It’s the first time I’ve considered it, but now it makes sense seeing how you buy into that alien abduction stuff. Having a tenuous hold on reality... “create a reality”... yup, that’s the kind of stuff you’d have experience with.

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*.
***Fine, then address my analogy of the 3rd amendment. What friggin procedures are there? There are very few because this hasn’t been much of an issue in our entire history. The fact that there aren’t good procedures in place to support a constitutional requirement is often a sign that this area hasn’t needed it in the past. But trolls seem to have a problem comprehending this.

You can’t change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it.
***POTO.

And it usually takes years (sometimes 7 or more years) to go through the process.
***POTO.

And all Amendments to the Constitution just don’t breeze through such a public vote in the various states.
***POTO.

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.
***POTO, and a straw argument because I’m not looking to change the constitution, I’m looking to enforce it.

This is another “unreal’ wild idea that some people are promoting. Nothing is going to change with the Constitution — without the states ratifying it.
***Again with the POTO thing, and again with the straw argument thing. Do you EVER have a valid argument? Can you put together two posts that do not contain classic fallacies in your arguments?

And I don’t see the states ratifying any changes that mess with the Constitution.
***POTO plus straw argument, same as above.

[Star Traveler]

Hi...

You said — “We’ve missed you.”

Well, one word... MacWorld... :-)

—

Okay, I read the portion of the letter you included.

Here is where I think that the Supreme Court will do what conservatives mainly (in general) want the Supreme Court to do. For the most part (in general) the conservatives do not like the Supreme Court act in ways that create new laws or new rights that do not exist (i.e., are not in legislation or even in the Constitution). On the opposite side, usually liberals like it when the Supreme Court will act in such a way that they can bypass legislation (which liberals can’t get through Congress), but the Court can “make it so” by means of a decision that steps outside of the law that is given (already).

Now, if it’s the actual case that there is a loophole in our system, in which the Constitutional qualifications are given for President — but the actual vetting process and the *actual documentation* is not spelled out in the statute, but left up to the discretion of various Secretaries of State (as to how they are going to do it) — then for the Supreme Court to actually specify a method or to force a particular document to be produced, which is not legislatively required — this would be stepping into the area of “making law” where none existed before.

Now, the *purpose* of doing this (from the viewpoint of conservatives) would be good and commendable, in order to *find out for sure* if Obama is qualified or not, and/or to get the “evidence” needed to bring it to court, one way or another — but — it would violate the very principles that the conservatives desire for the Supreme Court in the first place.

That’s kind of how I see it. And, I think..., if the Supreme Court is really intent (within themselves) to stick to strictly giving decisions based upon existing law — then I don’t think they are going to step out of bounds (of this principle) and make any kind of decision with Obama on this issue.

Now, that’s how I see this thing shaping up. It doesn’t present a good picture, in terms of what us conservatives would want, in requiring Obama to produce proof — but — it may be exactly what we get for the principles that we want the Supreme Court to abide by....

And then, that would lead me back to the “legislation route” once again... (i.e., the state laws, as being the easiest to implement right away).

[Kevmo]

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).
***Yes, I say that... before he gets in.

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.
***Specific case: Berg v Obama, to be conferenced tomorrow. 5 other cases before the court during this history episode, 2 thrown out so far. 10+ more specific cases making their way through the court system.

And all the cases before it — none of them have a thing to do with a “remedy” of removing a candidate.
***Sure they do. All of them do. If the candidate aint eligible the constitution says he CAN’T be president.

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*
***Not yet.

— and they’re not going to do any such thing.
***Invalid, classical fallacy, like the dog returning to his vomit: the argument from silence, the silence of the future.

Y’all are imagining that the Supreme Court is like some John Wayne cowboy, riding in there, both guns blazing and “taking out Obama”...
***Nope. You’re not very good at mindreading either, troll.

That’s the idea that you’re presenting with these wild schemes about how the Supreme Court is going to act.
***You don’t even read my posts. I don’t talk about how they’re “going to act” because that would be an argument from silence; that’s YOUR specialty, not mine.

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.
***Well, you’d be an expert on that there projection, being an alien abductee and all that.

There’s a huge *disconnect* from reality here.
***2 words: Alien Abductee. One more word: Projection.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2165531/posts?page=9#9

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.
***Your method has no chance whatsoever of knocking him off the horse before he is in office.

So, that makes a lot of sense to me and is connected to the “real world” in this situation...
***Uh huh. You’ve got that “real world” thing down, it’s plain for all to see. /s

[curiosity]

I did not say how much was spent. It’s speculation,

Tell that to Alan Keyes.

is that it costs more to have 3 law firms working for you than it does to send a copy of a birth certificate,

Not if those lawfirms are working for you anyway. Ever heard of a retainer?

which would start to resolve the entire situation.Do you dispute that?

Yes. If he had sent the birth certificate to the court, it would have to be accompanied by a brief, so lawyers are already involved no matter what. By sending that brief, his legal team would be admitting that the plaintiffs have standing. That, in turn, would open the door for the plaintiffs to start challanging the authenticity of the birth certificate and could potentially tie him up in legal battles for months.

From a pure legal strategy, it is a far to get the court to deny the plaintiffs standing, which resloves the entire situation in one stroke without necessitating any further briefs. To date, as far as I am aware, his legal team has had to file exactly one brief to be rid of this nonsense.

What were the statutes in 1961, if you think that was 1982 or have changed since 1961?

The statute in question is here:

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

The history of all statutes, including their amendments, are in brackets at the end of the statute. In this case it is:

L 1982, c 182, §1

Which means legislated in 1982. If a similar statute existed before, then there would be a history indicated in the brackets, with amendments listed afterwards. As, for example, in this statute:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm

There is a difference in the amount of information between the two documents,

Yes, but the information that's missing from the short form is not relevant to his eligibility.

nor does it show if the birth was out of state,

Are you blind? The short form clearly shows PLACE OF BIRTH.

[Velveeta]

I saw a jpg of one from the 1950’s or so. If I run across it again, I’ll post it to you.

[Star Traveler]

:-) ... wanna see what happens? LOL...

You keep your list of things that you think are going to happen and you know what I say is going to happen — and there we have it...

With me, in case you don’t know — Obama will take office; the Supreme Court will be doing nothing to either prevent that or remove him from office; Congress will do nothing to remove him from office, and no “sheriff” is going to go in there and escort him out of the Oval office (LOL...), we’ll get some states to pass legislation before the next Presidential election to properly vet Presidential candidates. Then we’ll have the next Presidential election...

That’s what is going to happen...

[it all sounds pretty normal to me... :-) ... ]

[hoosiermama]

A lot of good reasoning in that observation.
IMO Leo and Corts cases were not viable because they placed the burden on the SoS. The SoS would have no problem of proving they did not have that in their job discription and that it would be an undue burden to have all 50 states vet each candidate for each office.

Also IMO Berg places the burden on BO, DNC, FEC et al. It is more plausible, but until last week Berg didn’t have standing and I’m not certain without the Amicae brief attached it could do more than prove BO not eligible....If they ever could get to discovery.

Berg’s military case that is in the DC district again only questions eligibility. However, it seems at this time to have the best chance of getting to discovery....OTOH, Nothing c/would be ordered to establish responsibility to vet, a legislative responsibility for the future.

The bottom line BO, the executive branch is challenging the other two branches. He is destroying the constitution for his own ego and power....a dangerous man.

[Velveeta]

I have heard figures between 800k and one million. I have no idea where those numbers originated, but 3 law firms tracking almost 30 lawsuits - can’t be cheap.

You know my reply to your second sentence:

He has not provided his original long form birth certificate.

I think even you have your doubts about his eligibility and that’s why you’re here. ;-)

[curiosity]

I have heard figures between 800k and one million. I have no idea where those numbers originated, but 3 law firms tracking almost 30 lawsuits - can’t be cheap.

It's called a retainer.

[Velveeta]

Irrelevant? LOL Oookaaay.

Next.